How many cases has SMT.K. ARUNA KUMARI handled?

SMT.K. ARUNA KUMARI has handled 11 court orders since 2011 at Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex.

What types of cases does SMT.K. ARUNA KUMARI hear?

Based on available records, SMT.K. ARUNA KUMARI primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) at Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is SMT.K. ARUNA KUMARI currently posted?

SMT.K. ARUNA KUMARI is posted as JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, Nalgonda at Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex, Nalgonda, Telangana.

Are judgments by SMT.K. ARUNA KUMARI available online?

Yes. 6 judgments by SMT.K. ARUNA KUMARI are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

Since when is SMT.K. ARUNA KUMARI serving?

SMT.K. ARUNA KUMARI has been serving at Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex since 2011.

SMT.K. ARUNA KUMARI | JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, Nalgonda, Nalgonda

OS/543/2007

Thatikonda Yadaiah vs Maragoni Yadamma

11 Oct 2012

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: NALGONDA

(Dated this the 11th day of October, 2012)

Present: Smt K.Aruna Kumari, M.A.,M.L., Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

OS. 543 OF 2007

Between:

Thatikonda Yadaiah, S/o. Maraiah, Aged: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture labour, R/o. Cheekati Mamidi Revenue village of Munugode mandal, Nalgonda District. ….Plaintiff.

Vs.

Maragoni Yadamma, W/o. Anjaiah, Age: 40 years, R/o.Chikatimamidi village of Munugode mandal, Nalgonda District.

…… Defendants. This case is coming before me on this day for disposal in the presence of Sri. Palreddy Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri M.Narayana Rao, Advocate for defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :

:: JUDGMENT ::

1. This is a suit for declaration of title recover of possession in respect of suit schedule property.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as under.

That the plaintiff is the owner, pattedar and actual possessor of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 2-04gts. in Sy.No.251/AA and an extent of

Ac. 1-31 gts. In Sy.No. 252/E situated at Cheekatimamidi village of Munugode mandal, Nalgonda district, and total admeasuring Ac. 3-35gs., the same is herein after called the “Suit schedule property”. The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1995 from its original owners namely Kummari

Abbaiah, S/o.Guruvaiah and Mekala Baireddy, S/o. Ragna Reddy both are

R/o.Cheekatimamidi village, through simple sale deeds. The name of the plaintiff is recorded as pattedar since 1996-97 onwards and till today the name of the plaintiff is recorded as pattedar in respect of the suit schedule property.

Immediately after the purchase by the plaintiff possession was also delivered in favour of the plaintiff thus the plaintiff is in actual possession of the suit schedule 2 property.

3. After the purchase of the suit schedule property the plaintiff regularized the sale transaction before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Munugode under record of rights act, 1971. The revenue authorities issued 13-B patta certificate and pattadar pass book and title deed in the year 1996. Due to lack of knowledge on the part of the plaintiff he did not obtain the certified copy of 13-B patta certificate and the title deed in respect of the suit schedule property is deposited the co-operative bank, Munugode and obtained loan.

4. The suit schedule properties dry land and there is no source of irrigation . The only source is rain water. For the last 8 or 9 years as there was a drought condition in and around the Munugode mandal the suit schedule property was kept fallow without any cultivation and the plaintiff had been to

Bombay city to eke out his livelihood. Subsequently the plaintiff shifted to

Hyderabad city. During the month of November 2006 the plaintiff visited his native village Cheekatimamidi village and in order to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of the interested persons, he applied for certified copies of pahani patrikas before the mandal Revenue Officer, Munugode. The Plaintiff had obtained pahanies for the year 1993-94 to 2002-2003. On verifying the said pahanies the plaintiff was shocked as the name of the defendant is appearing in the possession column of the pahanies for the year 1993-94 to 2002-2003. On verifying the said pahanies the plaintiff was shocked, as the name of the defendant is appearing in the possession column of the pahanies for the year1996-97 to 2002-2003 and in the said pahanies the nature of the possession is referred as “kharidu (purchase). It is submitted that no valid sale transaction in respect of the suit schedule property was taken place between the plaintiff and the defendant. In the absence of the plaintiff at Cheekati Mamidi village the defendant got entered her name in the pahanies in the possession column but actually the defendant is never in possession of the said property. It is submitted that immediately on knowing the said fact of entering the name of the 3 defendant in the possession column the plaintiff approached the Mandal

Revenue Officer. Munugode and asked him to delete the name of the defendant from the possession column and record the name of the plaintiff in the said Coolum. But, the Mandal Revenue Officer refused to do so as he was under the influence of the defendant. The plaintiff got issued the Mandal

Revenue Officer, Munugode for amendment of the revenue entries. As the

M.R.O., did not respond to the notice the plaintiff once again got issued legal notice on 2-1-2007 to the defendant to come forward to rectify the defects in the revenue records, but the defendant also failed dot give any response to the notice.

5. It is further submit that by taking advantage of wrong entries in the revenue records the defendant is trying to grab away the suit schedule property belonging to the plaintiff. The title in respect of the suit schedule propriety is in the name of the plaintiff till today and it is well settle law that possession follows title. When the plaintiff is the pattedar of the land the possession is also in favour of the plaintiff. However, as the name of the defendant is entered as possessor and denying the title of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession consequential injunction over the suit schedule property against the defendant. Hence, the suit.

6. The counsel for the defendant filed written statement and denied the averments of the plaint and submitted that there are no merits in the plaintiffs case. The plaintiff had not come to the court with clean hands. They are suppressing all facts to gain advantage. The suit as farmed is not maintainable. That the plaintiff himself agreed that he is not in physical possession over the suit schedule lands, as such, seeking the relief of injunction does not arise and the other relief’s for declaration and recovery of possession cannot be claimed in one suit. The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The suit suffers from the non –joinder and mis-joinder of property and necessary parties 4 and cause of action. The suit is not properly valued in relations to present market value when the court will not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

7. The defendant further submitted that the suit schedule property is a dry land and further allegation in the Para that since 8 to 9 years prevailing drought conditions in the Managed mandal, and keeping the schedule property fallow without any cultivation by the plaintiff and he is migrating Mumbai city to eke out his livelihood is all invented for the purpose of filing the suit, when he is not in physical possession all the above fabricator has been created And again the plaintiff visiting to his village in the month of November 2006 and obtained the certified copies of pahanies before the M.RO, on verification of pahanies in the name of the defendant is appearing in the possessor column for the year 1996-97 to 2002-2003 and it is self explanatory by the plaintiff that in the possession of the pahanies referred as Khareedu that he himself admitted his plaint pleadings that the defendant is in possession it is the burden of the plaintiff to explain how the defendant came in to possession over the suit land.

8. It is further submitted that immediately after the knowledge that the name of the defendant in possessor column of pahanies approaching to

M.R.O., Munugode, to delete the name of the defendant and sending legal notice on 18-12-2006 to M.R.O., for that when he did not respond again issuing the legal notice on 2-1-2007 are all invented for the purpose of filing the suit and if he is in actual and physical possession over the suit schedule lands he would have taken steps by approaching higher authorities against the M.R.O., It is further sated that defendant tried to grab away the suit schedule property of the plaintiff taking the advantage that his name is recorded as a pattedar and he is not in physical possession over the suit land and he filed the suit for declaration, title and injunction which cannot be sought the three reliefs in a single suit.

9. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS:

The real facts of the case are that, the suit schedule property is purchased 5 by the defendant No.1 from the plaintiff in the year 1996 dt.18-12-1996 through a simple sale deed for a total consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and the entire sale consideration was paid for the same the plaintiff acknowledge since then the defendant No.1 is in possession and enjoyment the property basing on her physical possession and cultivation of the suit land the revenue authorities recorded the name of the defendant in possessor column i.e., Column No.13 as

KHAREEDU in column No.15 the above entries are recorded from 1996 onwards to till date when the defendant approached the plaintiff for registration of sale to be executed the plaintiff used to postpone the matter on one pretext or other. Further, after selling the land to the defendant the plaintiff got mutated his name in the revenue records and after escalation of prices in the land values to prove his innocence and ignorance the above suit is filed with all false and baseless allegations against the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled any relief as prayed in the suit because he is not in physical possession as on the date of filing of the suit for seeking the relief of injunction. Further for seeking the relief of recovery possession and it hits Sec.6 of Specific performance Act, i.e., immediately within the six months when he dispossessed from the suit schedule lands, he has to file the suit. Further for seeking the relief of declaration he should have better and marketable title including with the possession. Knowingly well he sold the lands to the defendant and with defect of title he cannot seek the relief of declaration. It is further submitted that the plaintiff did not approach the court with clean hands earlier the said plaintiff filed a suit for injunction vide

O.S.No.111 of 2007 when it is coming of written statement the plaintiff with

draw the suit is as not pressed. The said fact was not furnished in the present suit. This the said malafide intention of the plaintiff clearly goes to show that he approached the court with unclean hands. Hence, prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

10. Basing on the above pleadings my learned predecessor’s predecessor framed the following issues are framed for trial.

6 1 Whether the plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek declaration as prayed for?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant as prayed for?

4. To What relief?

11. ISSUE NO.1 to 3:

On perusal of the plaint the evidence of the plaintiff reported through plaintiff as PW-1 and Exs.A-1 to A-4, The PW-1 submitted that he is the owner, pattedar and actual possessor of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 2- 04gts., in Sy.No 251/AA and Ac. 1-31 gts., in Sy.No. 252/E, situated at

Chikatimamidi village of Munugode Mandal, Nalgonda district. PW-1 further submits that he has purchased that the said property which is the suit schedule property in the year 1995 from its original owner Kummari Abbaiah and Mekala

Bal Reddy through a simple sale deed and his name is recorded as pattedar since 1996-97 a pattedar in the revenue records in respect of the schedule land, after purchase, then the vendors delivered the possession. The petitioner also submitted that he regularized the sale transaction, after purchase of the suit land

before the then M.R.O., Munugode and the revenue authorities issued 13-B

certificate, Pattedar pass book and Title deed, due to lack of knowledge did not obtain certified copy of the 13-B certificate and deposited the Title deed with the Cooperative bank and obtained crop loan. The petitioner further submitted that 8 or 9 years prior to filing of this suit there was draught condition around the Munugode Mandal and the schedule land was kept fallow without any cultivation and he went to Bombay City for eking out livelihood. Subsequently shifted to Hyderabad city in the year 2006, November, he visited to his native village Cheekatimamidi, in order to alienate the suit schedule suit land to the interested persons applied for the C.C. of pahanies and after they were issued on verification they appeared in the name of the defendants in possession column from 1996 -97 to 2002-2003 and in the said pahanies in the nature of possession is referred as “Khaidu (purchase) . PW-1 submitted that no valid 7 sale transaction in respect of the suit schedule land taken between him and the defendants but in his absence in the village the defendant got entered her name in the pahanies in the possession column, but, she is never in possession of the suit property PW-1 also submitted that immediately he approached the

M.R.O., Managed and requested to delete the name of the defendant and to record his name in the possession column but the said officer refused to do so, under the influence of the defendants PW-1 issued legal notice the M.R.O., is

dated 18-12-2006 is Ex.A-3. The officer did not respond PW-1 against issuing the

legal notice to the defendant on 02-01-2007 Ex.A-4, to rectify the defects in the revenue records, but the defendant also failed to give any respond to the notice. The petitioner PW-1 also filed pahanies for the year 1993-94 to 2004-05 as shown in Ex.A-1, and PW-1 contended that taking the advantage of the wrong entries in the revenue records the defendant is trying to grab away the suit land belongs to him and his title on the suit land till today is in his name in the said circumstances, he filed the suit for declaring of title, recovery of possession and consequences means against the defendant in respect of the suit schedule land.

12. The defendant field written statement and also got examined as

DW-1 and also got examined on his behalf DW-2 to DW-4 and Ex.B-1 to B-12 are marked. From the above evidence defendants claim that the defendant is absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule land she purchased the schedule property from the plaintiff in the year 1996 through simple sale deed for a total consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and paid the entire sale consideration, and the plaintiff acknowledged the same and vacant possession delivered in her favour and since the date of the purchase the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of schedule land. The revenue authorities also rectified her name in the revenue records and her name is appeared as possessor in the pahanies and in the column No.15 of the pahanies. Also submitted that she approached the plaintiff several times to execute regular sale deed in her favour 8 , but the plaintiff postponed the matter, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the suit because he has not shown any physical possession as on the date of filing of the suit for taking relief of injunction. Further, for seeking the relief of the recovery of the possession U/sec. 6 of Specific Performance act plaintiff has to file immediately within six months of his dispossess from the suit schedule property but has filed this suit further seeking of relief for declaration he should have better title including the possession, but he sold the lands in her favour and delivered the vacant possession through simple sale deed in her favour. As such, the relief sought by the plaintiff is in admissible. The above said averments not mentioned in the written statement and also reported in evidence of the chief affidavit of the DW-1. In support of her version DW-2 got filed the C.C. of pahanies for the years 19996-97 to 2004-05 , 2010 are Ex.B-1 to

B-9. The report submitted by the revenue Inspector Ex.B-11 is the statement of 2007 Ex.B-12 is the panchanama . D-2 to D-4 are third party to the suit and adjacent to the suit schedule land. In their chief affidavit containing same averments and submitted that they are not parties to the suit and defendant has purchased suit schedule property from the plaintiff in the year 1996 through simple sale deed for Rs.1,00,000/- since then the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the property. They further submitted that the suit schedule land was mutated in the name of the plaintiff after he purchased the same and later he sold the suit schedule land to the defendant and given physical possession of the defendant. Even on several demands and requisition by the defendant, the plaintiff did not come forward to execute and regularize the registered sale deed, and the plaintiff did not come forward to get registration infavour of the defendant. The D-2 to D-4 also stated the panchayath was held and advise the plaintiff to cooperate the defendant in getting registration of the land but the plaintiff never co-operated and got filed the suit due to increase of price of the land the plaintiff with dishonored malafide intention and never registered the land in favour of the defendant.

9

After considering the evidence of both the sides, it reveal plaintiff with oral evidence claiming that he is the owner and possessor of the schedule property that he purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1995 from the simple sale deed. But, the plaintiff has to field simple sale deed in the court. Whether the said simple sale deed registered and by that the plaintiff got absolute ownership over the suit schedule property has not established by any documentary proof. But, the PW-1 submitted that his name is mutated in the revenue records and the revenue authorities are also issued title deed and Pass book because the possession is delivered to the plaintiff from his vendor, the plaintiff got mutated his name in the revenue records and obtained crop loan by depositing the title deed and also obtained the passbooks as in Ex.A-2. The pahanies Ex.A-1 also shown that the plaintiff is the pattedar of the suit schedule property up to 2004 to 2005 . The defendant is claiming that she purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1996 from the plaintiff ,though simple seed by paying the consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and plaintiff has delivered the possession in her favour and got mutated his name in the revenue records as possessor to the schedule property pahanies for the years 1996-97 to 2004-05, 2010--2011 Ex.B-1 to B-8 and the evidence of the D-2 to D-5 supporting the version of the defendants that the defendant is in possession the suit schedule property from the date of the purchase in the year 1996. But, the defendant has to file document of the simple sale deed submitted that they are in the M.R.O., Office. Though the defendant DW-1 has stated in cross she has issued legal notice to the plaintiff to register the suit schedule property in her favour, but the copy of the said legal notice is not filed to prove that she is issued legal notice to the plaintiff for registration of the suit schedule property.

13. That it was submitted by the DW-1 that she is elected surpanch for five years and rest of the defendants worked as surpanch of Cheekatimamidi

Village prayed to file the suit cannot be presumed that she got enter her name in the possessor column pahanies in the revenue records as possessor of the suit 10 schedule property as referred as purchased (Khareedu) as suggested by the plaintiff counsel. Because with the opinion of the revenue authorities in the pahanies the possessor column cannot be changed. More over in this case both the parties have not got examined the concerned revenue authorities who changed the names of the defendant as possessor in the pahanies column No.15 and as on what basis of the record the said changes made.

Therefore, as per the evidence filed by the defendant, the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property, from the date of her purchase that is from 1996 onward. The plaintiff failed to prove by any sort of evidence the defendant got entered her name in the pahanies in the possession column without valid sale transactions and the ExB-1 to B-8 are the false. The concern of the plaintiff is that he is not in the village since 8 to 9 years prior to filing of this suit and he went to Bombay later shifted his residence to Hyderabad city and came to know about the change of name of the defendant in the possessor column of the pahanies for the year 2006 November and after that he has issued legal notice as in Exs. A-3 and A-4 to the D-1 and to the Tahsildar to deleted the name of the defendant in the possession column. But the said version of the plaintiff is not believable form his evidence in the cross and also from the evidence of the D-2 to D-4. In cross PW-1/ the plaintiff has stated that he is the ward member to the village from 2001 to 2006 and also stated that

PW-1 he also progressive farmer in their village and he belong to C.P.I Party.

And also stated by PW-1 and he has leased his land in Sy.No. 231 to Lingaiah.

D-2 to D-4 supported in their chief, that the plaintiff was member of the Grama panchayath. In view of the above admissions of the PW-1/plaitnff and evidence of DWs. 2 to 4 it is crystal clear that the ward member of the village provides as Cheekatimamidi village from 2001 to 2006 and he is also progressive farmer from the village and belong to CPI party, for the six years prior to filing of the suit as progressive farmer and having lands apart from the suit schedule property , the plaintiff is in the village itself. Plaintiff version that he 11 went to Bombay is false in spit of the above admissions of PW-1 in cross and evidence of D-2 to D-4. Therefore, being in the village as ward member of the C.C. of pahani for the year 2001 on wards the plaintiff knowing about the change of his name in the possessor column towards the suit schedule property only in the year 2006 and at the time given legal notice to the defendant and the M.R.O.,to change name and pahanies shows that he did not filed this suit with clean hands. More over it was ,also admitted by the plaintiff and also stated by the defendant that the plaintiff filed the suit O.S.NO.111/2007 against the defendant for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property and subsequently withdrawn it. To file the suit for declaration for title and recovery of the possession until the Ex.B-10 to B-12 are obtained this suit was not filed by the plaintiff but not after knowing from the Ex.B-1 to B-11the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property and by that it was giving presumption the suggestions by the defendant might be true. Therefore, the version of plaintiff clearly shows that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property but since 1996 on wards and on the date of the filing of the suit he is not in physical possession of the suit schedule property for seeking relief of the injunction. Even for claiming relief for the recovery of the possession the plaintiff not filed this suit within six months immediately after the dispossess from the suit schedule land as incorporated U/secs. 6 of the specific performance Act and also in the citations reported in:

AIR 1997 Kerala 23 Hon’ble Justice J.B.Koshey between Abdul Rahiman, Vs.

Nalakath Muhammed Haji, wherein it is held that:

“It is clear from the wording of Section 6 that the above section provides a summary, cheap and useful remedy to a person dispossessed of immovable property otherwise than in due course o flaw. The object of the section is to discourage people from taking the law not their own hands, however go their title may be. It provides a summary remedy to a person who has without his consent been dispossessed of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, for recovery of possession without establishing title. The above section is also an illustration of the fact that a person is entitled to protect his possession except against a true owner and a true owner must also initiate legal proceedings for ht purpose 12 and cannot throw him out by show of sheer force except under special circumstance where the law gives him a right of private defense or self help. A person who is in possession of the property cannot be dispossessing without his consent or in any manner otherwise than in due course o flaw. Question of title is irrelevant in such suit . It is the question of possession. Plaintiff must prove his previous possession and dispossession by the defendant otherwise than in due course of law within six months of the suit. The court need to go into the nature of parties possession. However, it is the person who claims under Section6 should prove his possession and also the fact that he was dispossessed, within six months from the filing of the suit. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that he was dispossessed and that the suit was filed within six months from the date of dispossession.

14. Therefore, from the above ruling of law given in citation in this suit plaintiff failed to establish with sufficient evidence that he was disposed from the suit schedule property by the defendant with her influence and plaintiff is not in the village of Cheekatimamidi, where the suit schedule property is located for a period of 8 or 9 months prior to filing of the suit schedule land.

Plaintiff known the name of the defendant as possessor is changed in the pahanies in the year 2006 November, and disposed by defendant, the plaintiff filed this suit in November 2007 after one year he was disposed. Therefore, this suit will not come U/ Sec. 6 of the Specific performance Act to consider the plea of the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to prove that he has not sold the suit schedule property to the defendant in the year 1996 after receiving the entire consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and delivered the possession to the defendant. Ex.D-1 to D-12 and the evidence of the DWs.1 to 4 clearly established that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property form the year 1996 from the date of the purchase of schedule property by DW- 1and it was evident from the revenue records. The plaintiff also failed to prove the said documents Ex.B-1 to B-13 filed by the defendant are false.

15. Therefore, in view of the above discussion from the evidence of plaintiff on record it shows that the plaintiff name is mutated in the revenue records as pattedar and possessors of the suit schedule property but, the plaintiff sold the suit schedule property form 1996 and prior to that the plaintiffs are in 13 possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has not filed any documentary proof of the simple sale deed or any other document to show that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Ex.B-1, B-2 are the pahanies revenue records showing the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule property. But, no valid document filed by the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property to declare that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. As such, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the declaration of title over the suit schedule property. Therefore, the first issue are answered against the plaintiff. With regard to the delivery possession of the suit schedule property, it was already clear from the above discussions the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property since 1996. As per the revenue records filed by both the parties the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property from the date of purchase from the plaintiff i.e,. in the year 1996. Though the plaintiff denied the sale transaction of the suit schedule property to the defendant on simple sale deed but not filed any incriminating evidence to disprove that he has not sold through simple sale deed to the suit schedule property to the defendant. On the other hand the defendant established by both the oral and documentary evidence that they are in possession of the suit schedule property since 1996 onwards and they are in physical possession of the suit schedule property which was delivered by the plaintiff in the year 1996. Therefore from the evidence on record the defendant have established that they are in legal possession of the suit schedule property on the date of filing suit and the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant possession of the suit schedule property is illegal and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant. In addition to the abovefactsas already discussed the plaintiff not filed this suit within the valid period of six months after the plaintiff is dispossessed from schedule property as contemplated U/sec.6 of the specific relief Act, this suit I is bared under Sec. 6 of the Specific relief act. So in the 14 above said facts said circumstances and foregoing discussion the court is of opinion that that the plaintiff is not entitled to seek relief as claimed and due to devoid o merits and the suit is not maintainable either under law or facts 1 to 3 issues are answered against the plaintiff.

14. ISSUE NO.4:

In the result, the suit is dismissed.

Dictated to P.A. Transcribed by him. Corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court on this the 11th day of October, 2012.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALGONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

PW-1 Thatikonda Yadaiah

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

DW-1 Maragoni Yadamma, DW-2 Ch.Mohan Rao DW-3 P.Ramulu, DW-4 Yerukonda Yadaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLANTIFF: Ex.A.1 Bunch of CC. of pahanies (12) for the year 1993-94 to 2004-05 Ex.A-2 Original pattadar pas book Ex.A-3 Office cop of legal notice dated 18-12-2006. Ex.A-4 Office copy of legal notice dt.2-1-2007.

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

Ex.B-1 Attested copy of pahani for the year 2010 Ex.B-2 Attested copy of pahani for the year 1996-97 Ex.B-3 Attested copy of pahani for the year 1997-98 Ex.B-4 Certified copy of pahani for the year 1998-99 Ex.B-5 Certified copy of pahani for the year 1999-2000 Ex.B-6 Certified copy of pahani for the year 2000-2001 Ex.B-7 Certified copy of pahani for the year 2001-2002 Ex.B-8 Certified copy of pahani for the year 2002-03 attested copy of the pahani for the year 2004-05 Ex.B-09 Is the application of plaintiff to the Tahasildar, Munugode dt 6- 12-2006. Ex.B-10 Is the report submitted by the revenue inspector dt.16-4-2007. Ex.B-11 Is the statements dt. 3-4-2007 Ex.B-12 Is the panchanama dt. 3-4-2007.

15

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NALGONDA.

OS/133/2008

Palakuri Jyothi vs Pillamarri Yadagiri

25 Jun 2012

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: NALGONDA

(Dated this the 25th day of June , 2012) Present: Smt K.Aruna Kumari, M.A.,M.L., Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

OS. 133 of 2008

Between:

Palakuri Jyothi, W/o.Janaiah, Aged: 28 years, Occ: House Hold, R/o. Khajiramaram village, Thipparthy mandal, Nalgonda district.

….Plaintiff.

Vs.

1. Pillalamarri Yadagiri, S/o.Venkaiah, Aged: 50 years,

2. Pillalamarri Yeshodamma, W/o. Yadagiri, Age: 45 years,

3. Pillalamarri Venkanna, S/o. Yadagiri, Aged: 26 years,

4. Pillalamarri Geetha, D/o. Yadgairi, Aged: 245 years,

5. Pillalamarri Sudhakar, S/o. Yadagiri, Aged: 22 years, All are Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gaddikondaram village of Thipparthy mandal, Nalgonda District.

…… Defendants.

This case is coming before me on this day for disposal in the presence of Sri. K.Umamamaheshwar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri M.Nagi Reddy, Advocate for defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :

:: JUDGMENT ::

1. This is a suit filed for partition, allotment of equal shares and separate possession of the suit schedule property.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as under.

That the Defendant No.1 has acquired the ancestral property through his father. After his demise the said land was mutated in his name as well as on the name of the defendant No.2 as such her name was shown as defendant

No.2 since she is not entitled to any share over the suit schedule lands. It is submitted that as per the promise duly made by the Defendant No.1 his father that he will going to allot Ac.3.00gts., in favour of the plaintiff. Instead of giving share to the plaintiff the defendant No.1 developed the same by raising sweet orange garden and good yielding every year and the amount is diverting for the settlement of the defendants No.3 and 4 in their lives. Further, he purchased the agricultural lands covered in Sy.No.28, 92, 93, 94, 97 and 98 out of the profits of the sweet orange garden.

2

3. It is submitted that the plaintiff is eking out her livelihood by doing agricultural labour work presently she requested her parents to give her share of worth of the land value to her. But, they refused to allot any share to her in the properties held by the defendants No.1 and 2. It is submitted that according to the Sec.6 Hindu succession Act, the devolution of interest of coparcenaries property devolves by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenaries joint family and according to Sec 29 (a) of Hindu succession Act. The plaintiff and her sister and brother are entitled equal share as like there brothers since her marriage took place after the amendment in the

Hindu succession Act. Further, the plaintiff and the Defendants No.1. to 5 are in joint possession of the plaint schedule properties. It is submitted that the

Defendant No.1 is managing the suit schedule properties after the death of his father. He used to give share of profits derived from the joint family properties to the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff is in constructive possession over the suit schedule properties. It is further submitted that the marriage of the plaintiff was solemnized and she has been leading her marital life with her husband.

As per amendments to Sec. 29 (a) and 29 (b) of Hindu succession (Amendment)

Act. 1985 (inserted by A.P. Amendment Act of 1986 w.e.f. Dt 5-9-1985) as such, she acquired the right over the suit schedule properties and she is entitled to claim equal share in the plaint schedule lands. That the properties acquired by the defendant No.1 will be distributed in to equal shares to all the family members including the plaintiff because at the time of marriage no dowry was given to her husband. As such, the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 5 are entitled 1/5th share each.

4. It is submitted that since one year the defendant No.1 is not paying any amount towards share of the plaintiff in the net know that the defendants No.1 to 5 are entered in to an agreement of sale with the third parties for the sale of the suit lands in their favour without making any partition of the suit schedule lands, in order to deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiff over the suit lands. As such, the plaintiff made a demand to the defendants No.1 to 5 on 15/12/2007 for partition of the suit schedule lands for 3 amicable partition, initially they agreed for the same but they have been dodging the matter on one pretext or the other. Finally on 02/01/2008 the defendants refused to partition the lands and to give share to the plaintiff.

Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to sue the defendants and the defendants are liable to answer. Hence, the suit.

5. The counsel for the defendant filed written statement and denied all the averments of the plaint and submitted that the defendant No.1 is having (7) brothers viz., Lingaiah, Satyanarayana, P.Ramulu, P.Srinivas,

Kondaiah and Krishnaiah in a family partition the defendant No.1 has acquired to an extent of Ac.0-30gts., covered in Sy.No. 97/A, subsequently the said land was mutated in the name of the defendant in R.O.R. proceedings. It is further submitted that the mother of the defendant No.1 purchased the agricultural land measuring Ac.1-14gts., from its original owner Alakuntla Narsaiah. After her death the said land was partitioned among (7) brother an extent of

Ac.0.07gts., was fell to the share of the defendant No.1. It is further submitted that the defendant No.2 has purchased the agricultural lands covered in

Sy.No.28/A, measuring Ac.1-14gts., from its original owner Kancherla Ram

Reddy, S/o.Ragna Reddy, Kancherla Ram Reddy, S/o.Matta Reddy and

Kancherla Venkat Narsimha reddy, S/o. Kista Reddy who executed a regular sale deed in her faovur vide Reg.Doc.No.283 of 1988 dt. 6-1-1988. The R-2 also purchased another piece of land to an extent of Ac.1-25gts., covered in

Sy.No. 92 from Kancherla Venkaiah S/o.Ramaiah Kancharla Kistaiah, S/o.

Ramaiah, Kancharla Seshaiah for a valuable consideration who executed a regular sale deed in her favour vide document No.1645/1991, dt.10-6-1991, the above said properties being purchased by her with the financial assistance of her parents. It is further submitted that the defendant No.1 also purchased the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.93 measuring Ac.3.35gts., from its original owner Kancherla Venkaiah, S/o. Ramaiah Kancherla Kistaiah, S/o. Ramaiah,

Kancherla Seshaiah, S/o.Ramaiah for a valuable consideration who executed a registered document No.1646 of 1991, dt. 10-6-1991. The said property being purchased by the defendant No.1 with his own hard earned money.

4

6. It is further submitted that he defendant No.1 has obtained the mortgage loan from the State Bank of India, Nalgonda Branch to a tune of

Rs.5,00,000/- for the purpose of development for the agricultural land and fruit garden. Further, the defendant No.1 has borrowed the amount from Sri

Mereddy Yadagiri reddy, S/o. Chenna Reddy for Rs.1,00,000/-. Thota Saidulu,

S/o.Lingaiah, R/o.Marrrur village for Rs.50,000/- Ganji Sathaiah S/o.

Mallaiah, R/o.Kattangur R.s3,00,000/- lakhs, Kancherla Bhaskar Reddy,

S/o.Veera Reddy, R/o.Gaddikondaram for Rs.2,00,000/- Kancherla Bhsakar

Reddy, S/o.Sathi Reddy, R/o.Gaddikondaram Rs.1,00,000/- and Pillalamarri

Kondaiah, S/o.Venkaiah, R/o. Gaddikondaram village of Rs.50,000/-. In view of the facts and circumstances, it is just and necessary and very essential in the interest of justice and prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

7. Based on the above pleadings my learned predecessor’s predecessor framed the following issues are framed for trial. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek partition of suit schedule property as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

8. ISSUE NO.1:

On perusal of the plaint and the evidence of the plaintiff it shows that the plaintiff filed this suit claiming 1/6th share in the suit schedule property and to pass preliminary decree along with 1/6th share in the schedule property.

9. The plaintiff examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9.

The claim of the plaintiff as per her pleadings and evidence is the defendant

No.1 and 2 her parents 3 to 5 are here brothers and sisters. Her father D-1 acquired the agricultural lands through his ancestors after demise of her grand father and the land was mutated in the name of his father as well as in the name of the D-2 her mother. As per the Pw-1 version her father D-1 promised that he allot Ac.3-00gts., instead of giving share to D-1 raised the sweet orange garden and from the goods yielding every year diverted for the settlement of the D-3 and D-4 in their lives, further D-1 purchased the agricultural lands covered in Sy.No.28, 92, 93, 94, 98 out of the profits of the Sweet orange 5 garden. The plaintiff submitted that eves her shows lively hood by doing agricultural work requested her parents give her share and worth of land value, but they refused to allow any share to her in the properties by D-1 and

D-2. The plaintiff also submitted that according to Sec 6 of the Hindu

Succession Act, Section 29(a) of Hindu Succession Act, herself and D-3 and

D-5 are entitled to equal share over the suit schedule properties as they are in joint constructive possession over the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff also submitted that the D-1 managing other schedule properties after demise of

D-1 father he failed to give share in the profits from the family properties. The plaintiff also submitted that her marriage was solemnized and lead happy marital life with her husband. As per the amendment of the Succession Act she was entitled to claim the equal share in the properties acquired by her father and has to be distributed in to the equal share to all the coparceners of the joint family. Plaintiff also made demand to the defendants for partition of the suit schedule lands and the allotment of the share. Initially they agreed to for the same and dodged the mater and finally on 2-1-2007 the defendants refused to allow her share in the schedule lands as there is no other alternative plaintiff filed this suit for partition.

10. In support of her version the plaintiff filed Ex.A-1 the valuation certificate properties Ex.A-2 the original encumbrance certificate and also filed

Ex.A-3 to A-9 C.C., of pahanies for the years 1991-1992, 1994-95, 1997- 1998, 2000-2001, 2002-2003.

11. The defendant filed written statement, D-1 is examined as DW-1 and also got examined DW-2 and got marked Ex.B-1 to B-4. As per the averments of the written statement of defendant and the evidence of the DWs.

1 and 2 their defense is that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship of the parties and the suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition of the schedule lands measuring Ac.8-24gt.s, in Sy.No. 28, 93, 94, 97 and 98 situated at

Gaddikondarm village of Thipparthy mandal, Nalgonda district is false and maintainable DW-1 further submitted that in the evidence he had 7 brothers, namely Lingaiah, Satyanrayana, P.Ramulu, P.Srinivas, Kondaiah and 6

Krishnaiah in a family partition they have acquired to an extent of Ac. 0.30 gts., in Sy.No.97/A subsequently the said land was mutated in the name of D-

1. Mother of D-1 purchased the agricultural land Ac.1-14 gts., in Sy.No. 98/A from its original owner Alakuntla Narsaiah, after her death the said land was partitioned among his seven brothers an extent of Ac.0-07gts., was fell to his share. D-1 further submits that his wife D-2 purchased the agricultural land covered in Sy.No. 228/A, measuring Ac.1-14 gts., through registered sale deed bearing doc.No.283/1988, dated 6-1-88 is Ex.B-3 and also D-2 purchased another piece of the land to an extent of Ac.1-25 gts., covering

Sy.No. 92, from Kancherla Venkaiah for a valuable consideration, he registered sale deed bearing Doc.No. 1645/91, dated 10-6-1991. Ex.A-4 is the said original registered sale deed. The said properties are purchased by her wife with the financial assistance of her parents. D-1 further submitted that he purchased the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.93, measuring Ac.3-35gts., from its original owner Kancherla Venkaiah through registered sale deed

Doc.No.1646/1991 dated 10-6-1991, the said land was purchased by him i.e., through his earned money is Ex.B-2 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed bearing No.1646/1991, dated 10-06-1991. The D-1 also filed certified copy of the pahani for the year 1995-96, as Ex.B-1. DW-1 further submitted that, he obtained loan by mortgage of the land deeds in the State Bank of

India, Nalgonda to a tune of Rs.5 lacks for the purpose of the development of the agricultural lands further borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from Meredy Yadagiri reddy Rs.50,000/- from Thota Saidulu for Rs.3,00,000 from Ganji Sathaiah

Rs.2,00,000 from Kancherla Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Veera Reddy,

Rs.1,00,000/- from Kancharla Bhaskar Reddy S/o. SAthi Reddy and

Rs.1,50,000/- from the Pillalamarri Kondaiah. The D-1 further submitted that the contention of the plaintiff that he made promise to his father that he will allot Ac.3-00gts., in favour of the Pw-1, instead of giving share to the plaintiff is false and at the time of death of his father the plaintiff was not born to him as such, the plaintiff cannot claim the share in the property. DW-1 further submitted that his father died in the year 1979 and the plaintiff was 7 born in the year 1982 and D-1 further submitted that they gave three tulas of gold, 20 tulas of silver apart from Rs.20,000/- cash to the plaintiff, towards her share at the time of her marriage.

12. On behalf of the defendants the D-1 own brother who is the third party to the proceedings examined DW-2. DW-2 filed affidavit and submitted that the plaintiff is the daughter of his elder brother and D-1 submitted that his father by name Venkaiah owned and possessed the agricultural dry land measuring Ac.5-10gts, in Sy.No.97/A, situated at

Gaddikondaram village, her mother also owned and possessed the agricultural dry land measuring Ac.1.14gts., in Sy.No.98/A situated at Gaddikondaram village and they died in the year 1979 and 2006 leaving behind seven sons as their legal possessors and successors. After the death of their father immediately, the joint family is partitioned between his brothers. Dw-1 got

Ac.0.30gts., in Sy.No.97/7 and Ac.0-07gts., in Sy.No.98/A, situated at

Gaddikondaram village of Thipparthy mandal, DW-2 also submitted that the

D-2 purchased the Agricultural land in Sy.No.28/A measuring Ac.1-14gts., and also land measuring Ac.1-25gts. in Sy.No. 92, at Gaddikondarm village of

Thipparthy mandal with her own money and money provided by her parents

D-1 purchased the agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.3.35gts., in Sy.No.93, by his own earnings by doing coolly work. The defendant No.1 gave three tulas of told, 10 tulas of silver and apart from cash of Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiff at the time of the plaintiff marriage towards her share value.

13. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence furnished by the both the parties it reveal the main contention of the plaintiff is that during the life time of her grand father her father promised to him that he would allot

Ac.3-00 gts., in spite of giving share. D-1 develop the said land and got good yield every year and diverted them for support of defendants D-3 and D-4 and further purchased the agricultural lands covered in Sy.No.28, 82, 82 94, 98, out of the purchased the plaintiff has not reported any proof of evidence with her grand father died. The plaintiff stated that she born in the year 1982.

DWs. 1 and 2 stated in their pleadings and also suggested to the plaintiff in 8 the cross that their father died in the year 1979 before the death of the plaintiff in the year 1982. Therefore, the plaintiff has not filed any evidence to establish that she was born before the death of her grand father to claim share in the property of her grand father.

14. The plaintiff also failed to prove her version that her father has promised to her grand father that he would allot Ac.3-00gts. of land instead of giving share. It is also evident from the DWs. 1 and 2 that they have obtained in Ac.0.30gts., of share in family partition of seven brothers in Sy.No.97/7 and D-1 share was mutated in his name. It is also evident from the evidence or

PW. 1 and 2 that they obtained Ac.0-07gts., of the land in the partition among seven brothers in the land of Sy.No.98/A. The plaintiff also admitted in her cross after the death of her grand father and grand mother their seven sons got partitioned their joint family properties shown in the plaint Ac.8.24 gts ., in Sy.No. 28, 93, 94, 97, 98 of Gaddikondaram village of Thipparthy mandal.

15. Therefore, in the plaint schedule shown by the plaintiff with regard to the properties in Sy.No.97 and 98 as the property of her father acquired through her grand father but they are self acquired properties of the

D-1 her father, and not the ancestral properties. After the death DWs. 1 and 2 father and mother in the year 1977 and 2006, they got partitioned their joint family lands among the brothers acquired share Ac.0.30gts.. In Ex.A-3. Pahani also it is shown in Sy.No. 97/A and 98/A are mutated in the names of the D-1 and his brother. As per the Exs. B-2 to B-4 and the oral evidence of the DWs.1 and 2. The defendants proved that the D-2 has purchased the agricultural lands covering in Sy.No.28/A measuring Ac.1-14gs., which is shown in Ex.B-3 and also purchased the Ac.1-25gts, another piece of land in Sy.No.192 by registered sale deed is Ex.B-4 and D-1 purchased the agricultural land is

Sy.No.93, Ac. 3-35 gts., from its original owner for valuable consideration and also filed the C.C. of the said original sale deed Ex.B-2 and the certified copies of the pahanies of the year 1995-96, clearly shown that the D-1 and D-2 are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule land in Sy.No’s.28, 92, 93. D-1 9 and D-2 are the owners of the land in the said property and it is their self acquired property, but not ancestral property of D-1.

16. As per the citation reported in 1995 (1) ALT 814 between

Musini Leela prasad, Vs., Musini Bhavani and others, wherein it was held that:

“The ancestral property inherited by son on the death of his father should be treated as his separate property his son not entitled to a share in it by birth”

In another citation AIR 1996 SC., 1753 between Commissioner of Wealth Tax,

Kanpur etc., Vs., Chander Sen etc., wherein it was held that:

“ partition of joint family business between father and his only son business continued by father and as on by forming firm son forming joint family with his own sons. Death of father amount standing to credit of deceased father in account of firm devolves on son as his individual income S.8 has modified the old Hindu Law, such income cannot be included in computing net wealth of son’s joint family”

17. In view of the above citations which are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in this case DW-1 inherited to the ancestral property of his father and mother after their death, so they should be treated as his separate property but not ancestral property.

18. The plaintiff counsel stated in her cross examination that she cannot say the extent of the land, in the suit survey number and do not know the boundaries of the suit land it show the plaintiff does not know the real facts of the suit schedule property, the extent, boundaries and also whether they are the self acquired or ancestral property of the D-1. The plaintiff stated she performed love marriage and denied that her father D-1 has given there tulas of gold, 20 tulas of silver, Rs.20,000/- cash towards her share at the time of her marriage. Except the oral evidence of the DWs. 1 and 2 there is no documentary proof that D-1 has given three tula of gold 20 tulas of silver,

Rs.20,000/- cash to the plaintiff as share at the time of her marriage. D-1 10 also not filed any proof as alleged in the chief affidavit and pleadings that he has taken loan by mortgage of land title deeds at S.B.I, Nalgonda Branch

Rs.5,00,000/- for the development of agricultural land and also borrowed

Rs.1,00,000/- from Yadagiri reddy Rs.50,000/- from the Thota Saidulu

Rs.3,00,000/- from the Ganji SAthaiah Rs.2,00,000/- from Kancherla Bhaskar

Reddy Rs.1,50000/- from Pillalamarri Kondaiah. In total DW-1 stated in cross that he had Rs.5,00,000/ debt, but D-1 not filed any paper about the repayment of the debt amount. Therefore, from the evidence reported by the plaintiff and DW-1 and DW-2 along with exhibits filed as discussed above, it is clear that the suit schedule property in survey numbers 28, 92, of

Gaddikondaram village of Thipparthy mandal are the self acquired property of the D-1 but, not ancestral properties of the D-1, plaintiff failed to establish he suit schedule properties are ancestral property of his father D-1. Therefore,

U/sec. 29 (a) of Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiff cannot claim share in the D- 1 self acquired property as they are not the ancestral proprieties. Because they are not proved as ancestral property of the D-1 and they are the self acquired properties of the D-1 U/sec. 29(3) of the Hindu amendment Act, 1985 in the event of the death of the plaintiff father, plaintiff can claim right over the property, but in this case the plaintiff father D-1 is alive the plaintiff cannot claim share under the above provision of law of Hindu Succession Act.

19. The plaintiff got performed the love marriage with her husband and

D-1 has allegedthat he has given three Tulsa of gold, 20 tulas of silver, and

Rs.20,000/- cash towards the maraige at the time of the marriage but no documentary proof is filed by defendant to prove that plaintiff also failed to prove that his father has promised to his grand farther during his life time that he would allot Ac.3-00gts of plaintiff as her share because the plaintiff failed to prove that she has born before the death of her grand father Venkaiah and the said promise made by her father to his the grand father.

20. As per DW-1 evidence he is in debts to an extent of Rs.5,00,000/- in the banks and Rs.9,50,000/- from the persons. So, the burden on plaintiffs to disprove that the defendant No.1 is not in the debts as stated by him in the 11 evidence Hence, from foregoing discussion state of facts and evidence on record it is crystal clear that plaintiff failed to prove and establish in view of the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the D-1 claim 1/6th share along with the D-1 to D-5, this suit is dismissed against the plaintiff. The first issue is answered

21. Issue No.2:

In the result the suit is dismissed.

Dictated to P.A. Transcribed by him. Corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court on this the 25th day of June, 2012.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NALGONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

PW-1 Palakuri Jyothi

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

DW-1 Pillalamarri Yadagiri DW-2 Pillalamarri Kistaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A.1 Is the valuation certificate of schedule properties. Ex.A-2 Is the original encumbrance certificate. Ex.A-3 to Certified copies of pahanies for the years 1990-91, 1992-93, A-9 are 1994-95, 2002-2003, 200-2001, 1997-1998, 1991-92

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

Ex.B-1 Is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1995-96 Ex.B-2 Is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.166/1991, dt. 10-6-1991. Ex.B-3 Is the original registered sale deed bearing Doc.No. 293/1988,

dt. 6-1-1988,

Ex.B-4 Is the original registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.1645/1991.