Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
APWG010000122002
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),
:: ELURU ::
Present: Sri K.K.V. Buli Krishna,
Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Eluru.
Thursday, this the 26th day of March, 2026.
O.S.No.94 of 2002
Between:-
1.Edala Satyanarayana (Died).
2.Yedri Kowsalya, W/o Gangadhara Rao, Hindu, Female, aged 42 years, Property
3.Edala Rajani, W/o Late Satyanarayana, Hindu, female, Aged 48 years, House wife
4.Ms.Edala Sri Harshini, D/o Late Satyanarayana, Hindu, Female, aged 25 years (Defendant No.6 is transposed as Plaintiff No.2 as per order in I.A.No.388/2006, dated 19.09.2006) (Plaintiffs 3 & 4 were added as per the orders in I.A.No.1518/2007 dated 04.01.2013) (Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are resident of Madhyannapuvarigudem, Tirumaladevipeta Post, T.Narasapuram Mandal,Chintalapudi of West Godavari District.) ..… Plaintiffs AND 1Edala Pothu Raju, S/o Satyam Satyanarayana, Hindu, Male, Aged 40 years, Cultivation, R/o 100-Ramannapalem, T.Narasapuram Mandal, Chinthalapudi of West Godavari District.
2.Pydi Saraswathi, W/o Venkata Rao, Hindu, Female, Aged 50 years, Property, R/o Madhyannapuvarigudem, T.Narasapuram Mandal, Chintalapudi of West Godavari District.
3. Pitchikala Varalakshmi (Died)
4. Kakarala Neelavathi (Died)
5. Manukonda Subbalakshmi (Died)
6.Parvathaneni Rama Tulasi, W/o Parvataneni Venu Gopala Rao, Hindu, 1 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
Female, Aged 35 years, Property, resident of Madhyannapuvarigudem, T.Narasapuram Mandal, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District.
7. Special Tahsildar & Land Acquisition, Jangareddigudem, Kovvur Officer, Unit-IV.
8.Alla Sujatha, W/o Late Alla Satyanarayana, Hindu, Female, Aged 27 years, R/o Sadasivunipalem, Sattenapalli Mandal, Khammam District, Sattupalli JCJC.
9.Ms. Edala Kanaka Durga, D/o Late Edala Satyanarayana, Hindu, Female, Aged 23 years, Appalarajugudem, T.Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District.
10. Kakarala Srirama Murthy, S/o Late Kakarala Satyanarayana, Hindu, Male, Cultivation, R/o Kamayyapalem Post, Jeelugumilli Mandal, West Godavari District.
11. Kakarala Narayana Murthy, S/o Late Kakarala Satyanarayana, Hindu, Male, aged years, R/o Plot No.752, Vindu Residency, Plot No.202, Padma Nagar, Phase-2, Quthubullapur, Hyderabad.
12. Vellanki Bhulakshmi, W/o Vellanki Durga Prasad, Hindu, female, House-wife, C/o Mr. P.Dasanjaneyulu, Hyderabad, R/o H.No.58-4, opposite to Shivalayam, Sriram Nagar Colony, Chintal.
13. Medikonda Naga Mani, W/o Medikonda Ram Mohan Rao, Hindu, Female, aged years, R/o H.No.575, Utla, Jinnaram Mandal, Sangareddi District, Telangana State.
14. Pitchikala Nageswara Rao, S/o Gopala Ra, Male, Hindu, aged 3 years, R/o H.No.1-4, Main road, Palacharla Rajavaram, Palacharla, Rajavaram Post Jeelugumilli Mandal, West Godavari District.
15. Pitchikala Salomi, W/o Late Pitchikala Satyanarayana, Hindu, Female, aged 39 years, house-wife,, R/o Palacharla Rajavaram, Jeelugumilli Mandal, West Godavari District.
16. Pitchikala Rohit, Male, S/o Late Pitchikala Satyanarayana, Hindu, Male, aged 16 years, student, R/o Palacharla Rajavaram, Jeelugumilli Mandal, West Godavari District.
17. Cherukuri Rajeswari, W/o Cherukuri Nageswara Rao, Hindu, Female, Aged 48 years, R/o H.No.7-41, Gandhi Nagar, Aswaraopeta, Khammam District of Telangana State.
18. Ganta Srilakshmi, W/o Ganta Veera Raghavendra Rao, Hindu, female, Aged 42 years, R/o H.No.4-131/4, Timmapuram, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, West Godavari District.
19. Manukonda Satyanarayana, S/o Late Subba Rao, Hindu, Male, Aged 47 years, R/o D.No.3-27/505, SVS Residency RTC colony, Gangaram 2 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
Chandanagar, Tirumalagiri, Hyderabad of Telangana State.
20. Manukonda Rama Krishna, S/o Late Subba Rao, Hindu, Male, Aged 45 years, R/o Flat No.405, Block-A, Dhyanish Lake Front Apartment, Opposite Vignan School, Manjeera Pipeline Road, Madinaguda, Miyapur, Hyderabad of Telangana State.
21. Gurajala Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o Narasimha Murty, Hindu, Female, Aged 44 years,, R/o Flat No.405, 4th floor, Block-A, Dhyanish Lake Front Apartment, Opposite Vignan School, Manjeera Pipeline Road, Madinaguda, Miyapur, Hyderabad of Telangana State.
(Defendant No.7 & 8 are re-numbered as defendants 6 & 7 as the name of Defendant No.6 is transposed as Plaintiff No.2) (Defendant No.8 & 9 were added as per the orders in I.A. No.1247/2007
dated 26.06.2008 being the Legal Heirs of deceased Plaintiff No.1)
(The Defendant No.16 being minor represented by Court Guardian Sri.N.Pullarao, Advocate, Eluru has appointed in I.A.No.10/2023 in
O.S.No.94/2002)
(The Defendants 14 to 18 were added as per the orders in I.A.No.9/2023 in
O.S.No.94/2002 dated 24.07.2024)
(The Defendants 19 to 21 were added as per order in I.A.No.491/2023 in
O.S.No.94/2002 dated 24.07.2024)
..... Defendants
This suit came before this Court on 18.02.2026for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.V.Apparao, Advocate for plaintiff No.2; Sri. M.V.S Rama Rao and Sri P.P.Chandra Joshi, Advocates for Plaintiff Nos.3 & 4; and 1st plaintiff died pendenti lite and of Sri P.Bhaskara Narasimha Murthy, Advocate for Defendant No.1 and Sri.G.V.Anand Kumar, Advocate for Defendant Nos.8 & 9, Sri.D.Krishna Sastry, Advocate for Defendant No.10 to 13, Sri Nemala Subrahmanyam, Learned Government pleader for Defendant Nos.14 and 15, Sri. N.Pullarao, Court Guardian for Defendant No.16; Defendant Nos.2, 7, 17 to 21 remained Ex-parte; Defendants 3 to 5 died pendenti lite and Defendant No.6 transposed and upon hearing both sides and upon having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
3 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
J U D G M E N T
The present suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants by praying this court to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants for partition of the decretal amount in O.P.No.86/1985 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, including solatium, interest etc., awarded in the decree after deducting the Ac.1.00 cents of land with interest and solatium awarded there on, into three equal shares and allot one such 1/3rd share to the 1st plaintiff and again divide the 1/3rd share of
Late Edala Satyam into eight equal shares and allot one such 1/8th share to the plaintiff by declaring that the 1st plaintiff is entitled to Rs.2,01,697.60/- in the compensation amount and also praying this court to grant costs of the suit.
2.The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:
a)The 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant are the sons of late Edala Satyam and the 2nd plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 are the daughters of Late Edala
Satyam @ Satyanarayana, S/o Paramayya. It is further averred that the 1st plaintiff, 1st defendant and Edala Satyam are coparceners and members of
Hindu joint family and 1st plaintiff, 1st defendant and their father constituted a joint Hindu family and they owned an extent of Ac.5.44 cents of land in
R.S.No.9 of Borrapalem Village. It is further submitted that late Edala
Satyam during his life time performed the marriage of 2nd plaintiff and at the time of her marriage an extent of Ac.1.00 cents was given and gifted to her towards pasupukumkuma and he announced the said gift in the presence of elders at the time of marriage and delivered possession and since the date of gift Yedri Kousalya was in actual possession and enjoyment of the said land till it was acquired by the Government along with the remaining land of
Ac.4.44 cents belonging to the joint family of late Edala Satyam and his two sons it is further submitted that late Edala Satyam executed a formal 4 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
document dated 26.06.1980 in favour of 2nd plaintiff evidencing the gift of land Ac.1.00 cents to her towards pasupukumkuma. It is further averred that there was proposal for acquisition of land of Ac.5.44 cents in R.S.No.9 of Borrapalem Village for the formation of Yerrakaluva reservoir and in that connection an award enquiry was conducted by the Land Acquisition
Officer/Special Thasildar, Land Acquisition, Unit No.4, Jangareddygudem and he passed an award No.13/1985, dated 23.04.1985 and the father of the plaintiff attended the award enquiry and unfortunately after the award enquiry Edala Satyam died intestate leaving behind him two sons and six daughters as class-I legal heirs. It is further submitted that after demise of
Edala Satyam the 1st defendant being the eldest member of joint family, assumed management of family properties and affairs and the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 6 also reposed confidence on him. It is further submitted that there was an understanding and agreement among the family members that the compensation amount has to be divided between the shares as per law after deducting the value of Ac.1.00 cent of land given to the 2nd plaintiff from out of the compensation amount and the remaining compensation amount has to be divided into three equal shares between the co-parceners notionally that 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant are each entitled to such 1/3rd share and the 1/3rd share of late Edala Satyam has to be again divided into 8 equal shares between his sons and daughters. It is further submitted that the award No.13/1985 was referred to court and numbers as O.P.No.86/1985 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge
Court, Eluru. It is further submitted that as per family agreement and understanding the 1st defendant took active part in the court proceedings and the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 used to contribute amounts from time to time for the expenses required in the O.P., proceedings. It is further submitted that O.P.No.86/1985 was passed on 29.09.1997 after elaborate enquiry and since then the 1st defendant started withholding the information 5 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
about O.P., and it is further submitted that 1st defendant appear to have developed an evil idea of taking away the entire award amount to enrich himself and to cause loss to other sharers contrary to the understanding. It is further submitted that they came to know that the court passed decree and Land Acquisition Officer also deposited the amount and EP proceedings were also closed and in these circumstance, there is no possibility to the 1st plaintiff to implead himself to the party to protect his interest and share of money. It is further submitted that the 1st plaintiff got issued a legal notice to through his counsel on 28.07.2000 to the defendants 1 to 7 stating that he and his sister were also entitled to the compensation amount as per law and family arrangement and understanding and requested the 1st defendant and cooperative with them to received the award amount from the court. It is further submitted that the defendants 1 and 7 received the said notice and they failed to comply with the 1st plaintiff’s demand and thereafter, the 1st plaintiff submitted a petition to the District Legal Services Authority, West Godavari, so as to collect and receive the compensation amount according to their shares. But, the 1st plaintiff could not get any relief. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the present suit.
b.It is further submitted in the plaint the 1st defendant initiated execution proceedings vide E.P.No.248/1987 for Rs.6,59,000/- due from 7th defendant and in-pursuance of the decree in O.P.No.86/1985 and obtained attachment and from out of the said amount, the value of Ac.1.00 cents of land solatium and interest thereon have to be deducted as the same is payable to the 2nd plaintiff and remaining amount has to be divided into three equal shares by making a notational partition and allot such 1/3rd share to the 1st defendant and the remaining 1/3rd share of Edala Satyam has to be again divided into 8 equal shares and one such 1/8th share has to be allotted to the 1st plaintiff.
6 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
3.During the pendency of the suit the 1st plaintiff died on 07.05.2007 and defendants 8 and 9 are the surviving class-I heirs and legal representatives of the deceased 1st plaintiff and therefore they are entitled to an equal share in the 1/3rd share and 1/8th share in 1/3rd share of the 1st plaintiff in the plaint schedule property. It is further submitted that the husband of 3rd defendant died about 23 years back and one of her son namely Sri Pitchikala Satyanarayana also died and 4th defendant is the son of the deceased 3rd defendant and 15 and 16 defendants are wife and son of the deceased Pitchikala Satyanarayana and 17 and 18 defendants are the daughters of deceased 3rd defendant and shares of the deceased 3rd defendant in the subject matter of the suit devolved upon the defendants 14 to 18 and they have entitled to claim and receive the share amount of the deceased 3rd defendant in the plaint schedule. During the pendency of the suit 5th defendant died on 11.07.2023 leaving behind defendant No.19 to 21, as legal heirs of deceased 5th defendant. The plaintiffs prayed this court to decree the suit.
4.The plaintiff No.3 and 4 have filed rejoinder. Plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the deceased 1st plaintiff is the husband of 3rd plaintiff and father of 4th plaintiff and 2nd plaintiff is the elder sister of 1st plaintiff. They further submitted that 1st plaintiff married one Chandra Lekha at 1st instance and thereafter, they blessed with 8th and 9th defendants and later
Chandralekha died. Thereafter, 1st plaintiff married another woman by name Nagamani and they learnt that she died in the year 1993 and subsequently the marriage of 3rd plaintiff was solemnized with 1st plaintiff. It is further submitted that the said marriage was performed by 3rd plaintiff and her husband. The plaintiffs 3 and 4 further submitted that her husband
Edala Satyanarayana executed a Will dated 23.11.2006 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing the compensation amount covered under the suit amount along with other property. They further contended 7 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
that Edala Satyanarayana never executed any Will dated 19.04.2007 in favour of defendants 8 and 9. The plaintiffs 3 and 4 submitted that they are entitled for claim of the deceased 1st plaintiff.
5.The 1st defendant has filed the written statement and denied the averments of the plaint para wise. The defendant No.1 submitted that the suit is not maintainable either in law or facts and same is liable to be dismissed in Lumini. It is further submitted that this court has no jurisdiction and the plaintiff has not got any grievance has to approach the authorities under Land Acquisition Act and not by way of separate suit. The defendant
No.1 further submitted that the present suit is barred by time. The defendant No.1 submitted that he appeared before the award enquiry prior to 01.07.1985 and he alone continued as a notified owner of the property under acquisition and he received the compensation from the Land
Acquisition Officer and this defendant alone contested O.P.No.86/1985 as absolute owner of the property. The defendant No.1 further submitted that he has perfected his right over the land under acquisition by way of adverse position. The 1st defendant further submitted that the present suit is filed by claiming the money and therefore, the plaintiffs have to file suit within three years from the date of suit. The defendant No.1 further submitted that the plaintiffs having knowledge about the proceedings under Land Acquisition
Act and also disbursement of the amount to the 1st defendant. The defendant No.1 further contended that the suit is clearly barred by limitation.
The 1st defendant further submitted that the present suit is filed with a view to harass the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant further submitted that some misunderstanding cropped up between the plaintiff and defendants in the year 2000 regarding a passage and plaintiff has been nourishing grudge against the defendant. The 1st defendant further submitted that as per the arrangement and understanding arrived at during the life time of Edala 8 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
Satyam under the time of partition of the properties the defendant alone became entitled to receive the entire compensation amount payable by the
Land Acquisition Officer. The 1st defendant further contended that neighther the plaintiff nor the defendants 2 to 7 have got any right or share to any part of the land covered by R.S.No.9 in an extent of Ac.5.44 cents of Borrapalem
Village and also they have no right or share to any part of the decree amount payable in respect of the said land by the Land Acquisition Officer.
It is further submitted that the suit is previous and misconceive and same is to be dismissed.
6.The 2nd defendant filed additional written statement. The 2nd defendant contended that admitted by disputed land was acquired by the
Government and compensation was already disbursed by the Land acquisition Officer to him and after due enquiry under the provisions of land
Acquisition Act. The 6th defendant submitted that neither the plaintiffs nor any of the other defendants have challenged the award passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer. So, the suit seeking for a share in the amount mentioned in the plaint schedule is not maintainable. Neither the plaintiffs nor any of the other defendants are entitled to claim any share in the compensation amount already paid by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is further submitted that the suit for the relief of partition is not maintainable since the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not for challenge in a civil suit. Neither the plaintiffs nor any of the defendants have challenged the correctness or otherwise of the Award passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer. The 2nd defendant submitted that when admittedly the family has possessed of number of items of property, this suit for partition in respect of one of the items of the family is not maintainable. Neither the plaintiffs nor any of the defendants are entitled to claim any share in the amount mentioned in the plaint schedule and that the suit for partition seeking for 1/3rd + 1/8th share in the suit amount by the plaintiffs is not 9 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
maintainable and it is misconceived. It is submitted by the 2nd defendant that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the plaintiffs are challenging the land acquisition award passed under the provisions of land acquisition Act. Therefore, prays the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.
7.The 6th defendant has filed written statement. The defendant Nos.3 to 5 adopted the written statement of Defendant No.6. The 6th defendant submitted that the 8th defendant acquired Ac.5.44 cents of land in R.S.No.9 of Borrapalem Village during the lift time of Edala Satyam and passed an award No.13/1985 dated 23.04.1985 awarding compensation and the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 became entitled to the compensation. It is further submitted that the 1st defendant being the eldest son and main member of Late Edala Satyam had actually participated in the court proceedings in O.P.No.87/1985 and the other sharers also contributed amounts for the expenses required for the court proceedings. It is further submitted that the 1st defendant alone is responsible for this litigation and his acts and deeds forced the plaintiff to file the suit and therefore, defendants 2 to 7 are liable to pay the suit costs to the plaintiff. The defendant Nos.6 and 3 to 5 prayed this court to decree the suit.
8.The defendant No.7 has filed written statement and denied the material allegations in para No.4 to 7. He further submitted that he is not aware of the undertakings between the other family members. The defendant No.7 further submitted that an extent of Ac.5.44 cents in
R.S.No.9 of Borrapalem Village, T.Narasapuram Mandal belonging to the 1st defendant and the same was acquired by the Government for formation of
Yerrakaluva Reservoir and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed a compensation of Rs.4,007/- per acre and having dissatisfied with the said amount a reference was made to the Civil Court under Sec.18 of the Land
Acquisition Act and the said reference was numbered as O.P.No.86/1985 10 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
and the same was enquired into and an order was passed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,007/- to Rs.22,000/- per acre. The defendant No.7 further submitted that the defendant No.7 is alone participated in the proceedings and the 1st plaintiff never made any claim either before the
Land Acquisition Officer or in the proceedings under Sec.18(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act. It is further submitted that the plaintiff for the first time filed the present suit claiming as the co-owner of the acquired land and claiming the share in the compensation. The 7th defendant further submitted that there are no latches on his part and he is no way concerned with the alleged title dispute. The 7th defendant prayed this court to dismiss the suit.
9.As per Orders in IA.No.388/2006, dated 19.09.2006, defendant No.6 is transposed as 2nd plaintiff and defendant Nos.7 and 8 are renumbered as
Defendant Nos.6 and 7 and subsequently defendants 8 and 9 are added as per orders in I.A.No.1247/2007, dated 20.06.2008, being the legal heirs of the 1st defendant.
10.The defendant No.1 filed additional written statement by denying the relationship of defendant Nos.3 and 4 with the deceased 1st plaintiff. The defendant No.1 is also denied that the 3rd plaintiff is legally wedded wife of deceased 1st plaintiff and he further denies that the 4th defendant is the daughter of Satyanarayana. The defendant No.1 further submitted that the defendants 8 and 9 are not necessary parties to the proceedings. The defendant No.1 prayed this court to dismiss the suit.
11.The defendant No.8 supported the averments of the plaint. Apart from that the defendant No.8 submitted that Edala Satyanarayana never executed any Will on 23.11.2006 bequeathing the share in the compensation amount. It is further submitted that the Will dated 23.11.2006 is a forged and false document. Brought into existing by the plaintiffs 3 and 11 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
4 and no such Will never executed by Edala Satyanarayana. It is further submitted that Smt. Rajini is the wife of Talluri Murali of Kotthur Village and she got a son by name Kiran through said Murali and the martial tie between the said Murali and Rajini was not dissolved. Therefore, the plaintiffs 3 and 4 are not at all entitled for claim. It is further submitted that the 3rd plaintiff is not at all the wife and she is not entitled for any claim. It is further submitted that the decree has to be passed according to the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act and directly 1st defendant to pay the compensation awarded in the O.P.No.86/1985. It is further submitted that Edala Satyanarayana executed a Will dated 19.04.2007 in a sound and disposing state of mind and bequeathed his share of ancestral properties and also the compensation amount in the suit and the said Will is came into effect after the death of Edala Satyanarayana and the defendants 8 and 9 became entitled to the compensation amount. It is further submitted that the Will dated 19.04.2007 is the last Will and testament of late Edala Satyanarayana as such the plaintiffs 3 and 4 have no right to claim anything in the suit. The defendant No.9 has filed memo by adopting the contents of written statement filed by the 8th defendant.
12.The defendant No.1 has filed additional written statement on 01.03.2013 is submitted that when admittedly the family has possessed of number of item of properties. The suit for partition in respect of only one of the items of family is not maintainable and thereby neither the plaintiffs nor any of the defendants are entitled to claim mentioned in the plaint schedule.
13.The defendant No.8 filed additional written statement to the rejoined filed by the plaintiffs 3 and 4 by denying the averment of the rejoinder by reiterating the facts mentioned in the written statement filed by them. They vehemently contended that the plaintiffs 3 and 4 are not at all the wife and daughter of the 1st plaintiff Edala Satyanarayana and therefore, they are not 12 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
entitled to claim any amount in O.P.No.86/1985. The defendant No.9 adopted the additional written statement of defendant No.8.
14.The 16th defendant adopted the written statement filed by the defendants 8 and 9.
15.After perusal of pleadings and hearing of both sides, the following issues are framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a share as claimed out of the amount awarded in O.P.No.86 of 1985?
2. Whether the suit is barred by time?
3. To what relief?
Additional Issue framed on 30.01.2014
1. Whether the plaintiffs 3 and 4 are entitled to any share out of the share of deceased 1st plaintiff ?
16.During the course of trial, 2nd plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and got examined PWs.2 to 6 and got marked Exs.A1 to A.18, but the evidence of
PW.1 is eschewed as per docket order dated 08.11.2006 and on behalf of defendants, DWs.1 to 4 examined and got marked Ex.B.1 only.
17.Heard both sides.
18.The evidence of PW.1 is eschewed on 8.11.2006. Yedri Kowsalya /2nd plaintiff is examined as PW.2. She deposed that the 1st plaintiff is her brother , but he is not taking interest in pursuing the proceedings diligently and he filed a petition to transpose him as 2nd plaintiff vide IA No.388/2006 and it was allowed on 19.09.2006 and she is having a lawful share in the compensation amount and therefore, he is filing the present affidavit. PW.2 reiterated the averments in the plaint during her chief examination. PW.2 13 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
also denied the averments of written statement filed by the 8th defendant .
Pw.2 got marked Exs.A.1 to A.9. In the cross examination PW.2 deposed that they six sisters and she is 5th among them and during the life time of her father, her father performed their marriages and her marriage was performed in the year 1979. She further deposed that the marriage of last sister was performed in the year 1984. She further deposed that she do not know whether her sister was given any landed property towards pasupu kumkuma at the time of her marriage and at the time of marriage of her younger sister Ac.4.00 cents of land was given to her. PW.2 further deposed that she do not know whether her father gave any statement
before land acquisition officer. She further deposed that as per her
knowledge her father owned Ac.37.45 cents. PW.2 further deposed that she did not file any claim petitioner before Land Acquisition Officer for payment of share in compensation amount and that compensation was paid to her brother i.e. 1st defendant. Pw.2 further deposed that he did not file any petition either before LAO or in the enquiry under Section 18 of LA Act by the Civil Court. PW.2 further deposed that the 1st plaintiff filed the present suit and due to his ill health he could not attend before the Court as such she is prosecuting the case. PW.2 further deposed that he did not give any notice to her brother claiming the share in compensation amount.
19.One Edala Rajani is examined as PW.3. PW.3 deposed that she herself and 4th plaintiff were added as plaintiffs 3 and 4 as per the orders in
IA No.1518/2007 of this Court as legal representatives of the deceased 1st
plaintiff who is her husband and father of 4th plaintiff and 2nd plaintiff Yedri
Kowsalya is the 6th defendant originally, later transposed as 2nd plaintiff.
PW.3 reiterated the averments of the rejoinder filed by her during her chief examination. During the cross examination, PW.3 deposed that apart from suit schedule their family have immovable properties and they have not 14 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
shown those properties in the schedule. PW.3 deposed that she do not know whether the deceased making a claim before Land Acquisition Officer.
She further deposed that Defendant No.2 pursued the land acquisition proceedings. She further deposed that she gave authorization to defendant
No.1. She further deposed that her marriage was performed with the 1st plaintiff in the year 1994. She further deposed that she do not know the survey number of schedule property and she do not know the persons who were present before the land acquisition officer after acquiring of land by the Government. She further deposed that the 1st plaintiff having knowledge about OP No.86/1985 and also aware about appeal proceedings filed by Government against claimant in OP No.86/1985. PW.3 further deposed that defendants 8 and 9 are daughters of 1st plaintiff. PW.3 further deposed that the present suit is filed by the 1st plaintiff for share in the land acquisition compensation amount which was received by the 1st defendant.
Pw.3 further deposed that the property that was acquired by the
Government which is the subject matter of the present suit is the ancestral property of 1st plaintiff. PW.3 further deposed that there is no recital in the
Will about the present suit. PW.3 further deposed that the 1st plaintiff is habituated to alcohol.
20.One M.Venkateswara Rao is examined as PW.4. He deposed about execution of the Will under Ex.A.10. He is the attestor of Ex.A.10. In the cross examination, PW.4 deposed that Ex.A.10 was executed at the house of Murakani Ranga rao. PW.4 further deposed that Ex.A.10 was executed after 10.00 am, but he could not say the exact time. He further deposed that the 1st plaintiff did not bring any registered documents at the time of execution of Ex.A.10.
21.One Mangisetti Venkateswara Rao is examined as PW.5. PW.5 is also one of the attestor of Ex.A.10. He deposed on the same lines as 15 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
deposed by PW.4. PW.5 deposed that he studied up to 5th class and he knows the contents of Ex.A.10 Will which is attested by him. PW.5 further deposed that he do not remember particulars of the properties mentioned in
Ex.A.10. PW.5 further deposed that he do not remember which pen was used by PW.4 and pen used by the scribe.
22.One Varikuti Satyanarayana is examined as PW.6. He is a 3rd party to the proceedings. He deposed that the marriage of Edala Rajani was performed with Edala Satyanarayana on 27.3.1994 in the night hours at 1.05 am at Ramalayam temple, Borrapalem Village in the presence of relatives and well wishers and he was present at that time of marriage. In the cross examination, PW.6 deposed that he got acquaintance with 1st plaintiff since 1983 and he do not know by 1983 he was already married or not. PW.6 further deposed that he do not know the family affairs of 1st plaintiff. PW.6 further deposed that he do not know the age of 3rd plaintiff on the date of marriage. PW.6 further deposed that he do not know the contents of his chief affidavit and he put his signature therein.
23.The 1st defendant is examined as DW.1. He reiterated the averments of the written statement during his chief examination. Dw.1 further deposed that the suit is barred by limitation. He further deposed that the necessary parties are not made parties to the suit and plaintiffs are not entitled to seek for share in the compensation amount. DW.1 further deposed that he received the compensation from the Government and same is within the knowledge of this defendant and other defendants. Dw.1 further deposed that none of the plaintiffs or the other defendants have made any claim
before the Senior Civil Judge’s Court when the decree is being executed by
him. In the cross examination, DW.1 deposed that after the death of his father, he himself , his brother and his younger brother were impleaded as 16 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
LRs in the said land acquisition proceedings. DW.1 further deposed that
Defendant 4 to 6 did not file no objection certificate before Land Acquisition
Officer to give compensation to him. DW.1 further deposed that he did not remember his pleadings. He further deposed that 1st plaintiff filed the suit claiming share in the compensation amount. DW.1 further deposed that the land acquired by the government belonged to his father. Dw.1 further deposed that he do not know the case of 2nd plaintiff in the present suit.
DW.1 further deposed that he received total compensation amount for the entire land acquired from the Government. Dw.1 further deposed that he do not know whether 1st plaintiff executed Will dated 19.4.2007. DW.1 further deposed that there is no documentary proof to show that in the family partition he was given Ac.5.44 cents in RS No.9 by his father. DW.1 further deposed that his father used to attend the enquiry before the Land
Acquisition Officer at the time of land acquisition proceedings. DW.1 further deposed that after receiving he compensation amount he distributed the amount to all the family members as per their share.
24.One Emmani Venkateswara rao who is the attestor of Will dated 19.4.2007, is examined as DW.2 He deposed that Edala Satyanarayana executed a Will on 19.4.2007 bequeathing the schedule property to his daughters in an extent of Ac.3.75 cents of land along with relief in OP
No.86/1985 in favour of his both daughters by executing a Will. In the cross examination, DW.2 is turned hostile and not supported the version of defendant No.8 and 9 . IN the cross examination ,DW.2 deposed that he do not know the document executed by plaintiff No.1 on 19.4.2007 and the preparation of Will was not done in his presence. The learned counsel for the defendant No.8 and 9 cross examined the DW.2 at length.
17 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
25.Alla Uma Maheswara rao is examined as DW.3. DW.3 deposed that
Edala Satyanarayana executed a Will dated 19.4.2007 bequeathing the schedule properties to his daughters in an extent of Ac.3.75 cents of land along with relief in OS No.94/2002 in favour of his both daughters . In the cross examination, DW.3 is turned hostile and not supported the version of defendant Nos 8 and 9 in respect of will. DW.3 deposed that he scribed
Ex.B.1 at the request of defendant No.8 but he do not know the contents of same. The learned counsel for the defendant Nos.8 and 9 cross examined the DW.3 at length.
26.Alla Sujatha who is 8th defendant is examined as DW.4. DW.4 reiterated the averments in the rejoinder during his chief examination. In the cross examination, DW.4 deposed that Edala Rajani is no where related to him and plaintiff No.4 Edala Sriharshini is also not her relative. DW.4 further deposed that his father married one Nagamani Lakshmi and said
Nagamani Lakshmi was alive by the time of filing of present suit. DW.4 denied the marital relationship between the Edala Rajani and her father.
DW.4 further deposed that her father and her maternal aunt filed the present suit. DW.4 deposed that the Government acquired the property but not disbursed the compensation.
27.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the defendant
No.1 received the compensation awarded in OP No.86/1985 on the file of
Prl. Senior Civil Judge , Eluru and the said property is ancestral property, the plaintiff No.1 and defendants 2 to 6 having right over the said amount.
The learned counsel for the plaintiffs further contended that the defendant
No.1 did not distribute the shares to the plaintiff No.1 and defendant Nos.2 to 6. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs further contended that the 18 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
plaintiffs having right over the award amount and they are entitled for partition.
28.The learned counsel for the plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the plaintiff No.3 is legally wedded wife of plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.4 is daughter of plaintiff No.1. The learned counsel for the plaintiff No.3 and 4 submitted that Edala Satyanarayana executed a Will under Ex.A.5 in favour of plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 and therefore, the plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 are entitled to get share out of the share in respect of plaintiff No.1. The learned counsel for the plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 further contended that defendants 8 and 9 are not entitled for share in view of the will executed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of plaintiffs 3 and 4.
29.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs 3 and 4 further submitted that the Defendants 8 and 9 failed to prove Ex.B.1 Will. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs 3 and 4 further submitted that the property mentioned in the plaint is ancestral property and it is liable for partition. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs 3 and 4 further submitted that prayed this Court to decree the suit and allot the share in respect of plaintiff No.1 to plaintiffs 3 and 4.
30.The learned counsel for the defendants 8 and 9 submitted that admittedly the schedule property is ancestral property and defendants 8 and 9 are impleaded as testamentary successors. The learned counsel for the defendants 8 and 9 submitted that the plaintiff No.1 executed a Will under Ex.B.1 in favour of defendants 8 and 9 and as per the Will the defendants 8 and 9 are entitled for the share in respect of plaintiff No.1. The learned counsel for the defendants 8 and 9 submitted that the defendants 8 and 9 proved the Will under Ex.B.1. The learned counsel for the 19 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
defendants 8 and 9 prayed this Court to decree the suit by allotting the share in respect of plaintiff No.1 to Defendant Nos.5, 8 and 9.
31. The learned counsel for the defendant No.1 submitted that the suit is not comes under partition and it is money claim. The learned counsel for defendant No.1 submitted that plaintiffs failed to produce any land acquisition proceedings and they did not produce any positive material
before this Court to prove the claim. The learned counsel for the defendant
NO.1 contended that the suit is not filed within the period of limitation and the suit is filed without any prayer for preliminary decree. The learned counsel for the defendant No.1 further contended that the transaction was made in the year 1997 and filed the suit in the year 2002 and therefore, the present suit is not maintainable.
32.Issue Nos. 1 and 2
1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a share as claimed out of the amount awarded in O.P.No.86 of 1985?
2.Whether the suit is barred by time?
The plaintiff No.1 has filed the suit by praying this Court to pass a decree in his favour for partition of the decretal amount in OP No.86/1985. The plaintiff submit that the Government acquired Ac.5.44 cents of land in survey No.9 of Borrapalem village. It is further averred in the plaint that the land acquisition officer passed an award No.13/1985 dated 23.04.1985 and father of the plaintiff attended the award enquiry and unfortunately after the award enquiry Edala Satyam died intestate leaving behind him two sons and six daughters as class-1 legal heirs. It is further averred that after the demise of Edala Satyam the defendant No.1 managed the joint family and also represented land acquisition proceedings. It is further averred that the 20 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
defendant No.1 received the compensation amount contrary to the family understanding. It is further averred that the defendant No.1 received the compensation from land acquisition officer by filing execution petition. The plaintiffs submitted that the execution proceedings are closed and thereby, they could not implead in the execution proceedings. The plaintiff prayed this Court to decree the suit.
33.The defendant No.1 admitted that he received the compensation amount awarded in OP No.86/1985. The defendant No.1 took contrary stand in the written statement and his chief examination affidavit. As per the version of defendant No.1 the land acquired by the Government is belongs to his father.
34.During the course of trial, the plaintiff No.1 did not choose to appear
before the Court and therefore, the evidence of PW.1 is eschewed. It is
born out from the record that plaintiff No.1 died during the pendency of suit .
The plaintiff No.2 transposed from Defendant and prosecute the matter by filing chief affidavit as PW.2. She submitted that due to ill health his brother /plaintiff No.1 would not prosecute the matter. The plaintiff No.2 contended that they also having share. After demise of plaintiff No.1 the plaintiffs 3 and 4 are added as legal representatives of plaintiff No.1 and defendant
Nos.8 and 9 also added as legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No.1.
35.The plaintiffs 3 and 4 filed rejoinder and submitted that the plaintiff
No.1 executed a Will under Ex.A.5 in their favour. It is further contended that the plaintiff No.3 is legally wedded wife of plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff
No.4 is daughter of Plaintiff No.1. The plaintiff 3 and 4 adduced evidence and claimed the share out of the share claimed by the plaintiff No.1. the defendants 8 and 9 vehemently contended that the plaintiff No.3 is not legally wedded wife of his father. The defendant 8 and 9 contended that his 21 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
father executed a Will under Ex.B.1 and bequeathed his share in decretal amount in OS No.86/1985. The defendant Nos. 8 and 9 got examined
DWs.2 and 3 in order to prove the Will.
36.Originally the suit is filed for partition of the plaint schedule property.
The plaint schedule property is cash of Rs.2,01,697.60. The defendant
No.1 opposed a claim by stating that the property is belongs to him and he got the same by way of adverse possession. In the evidence DW.1 deposed that he distributed the compensation amount to plaintiff No.1/his brother and his sisters/ defendants 2 to 6.
37.The defendant No.1 submitted that he received the amount towards compensation. As per the pleadings the execution proceedings for realization of the compensation amount was completed in the year 1997.
The plaintiff No.1 having knowledge about the land acquisition proceedings.
The plaintiff No.1 filed the suit basing on land acquisition proceedings, but the plaintiff No.1 or plaintiff No.2 failed to produce any document in respect of land acquisition proceedings. On behalf of plaintiffs Ex.A1 to A.18 are marked. Out of which, there is no document to show the land acquisition proceedings and amount awarded under land acquisition . Further, it is born out from the record the land acquisition officer is added as defendant
No.7. He also filed written statement by stating that an extent of Ac.5.44 cents in RS No.9 of Borrapalem village is acquired and the said property is belongs to defendant No.1 for formation of Yerrakaluvu Reservoir and land acquisition officer fixed the the compensation and thereafter, it was enhanced by the Court. The defendant No.7 further contended that the plaintiff never made any claim either before the land acquisition officer or in the proceedings under Section 18(1) of land Acquisition Act.
22 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
38.As per the version of defendant No.1 and the version of defendant
No.7 the amount mentioned in the schedule is already disbursed . The partition suit is filed for partition of the schedule property. The property is not in the hands of Government and it is received by the defendant No.1. It is born out from the record that the plaintiff No.1 having knowledge about the land acquisition proceedings.
39.The plaintiff No.1 failed to produce the land acquisition proceedings
before the Court to show that the Government acquired the land belongs to
his father and defendant No.1 represented his father before the land acquisition officer by made a promise to the plaintiff No.1 and his sisters that he will look after the proceedings and settle the compensation among them . The land acquisition officer submitted that the property belonging to the 1st defendant. The plaintiff No.1 or plaintiff No.2 did not choose to take any steps to call for the record from the land acquisition officer to substantiate their claim.
40.The plaintiff No.1 filed IA 111/2004 by praying this Court to direct the 8th respondent to produce the entire file relating to award No.13/1985 but the said petition is not prosecuted by the plaintiff No.1.
41.In a partition suit it is pre-requisite condition is the property should be available for partition. In this case, there is no property available and the defendant No.1 already received the amount from the land acquisition officer. The plaintiff has to seek recovery from the defendant No.1. The suit is filed for partition instead of recovery of amount from the defendant No.1.
The plaintiff No.1 having knowledge about the land acquisition proceedings and they did not implead in those proceedings and now filed suit for partition. As observed above, the property is not in existence and the 23 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
property is also received by defendant No.1 in the year 1997 and the present suit is field in the year 2002.
42.Admittedly, there are some properties are also there and the properties are not partitioned between the parties. There is no clarity in the plaint about the total property holded by the father of the plaintiff no.1 and division of properties among themselves. There is no clarity about the previous partition if any taken place between the parties. The present partition suit is filed only for the amount received by the defendant No.1.
There is no proper explanation from the plaintiff No.1 or plaintiff No.2 why they are not added the other properties in the plaint schedule property . It is well settled law that a partition suit must generally include all joint family or co ownership properties to be legally maintainable preventing partial partition. Omitting properties without valid reason can lead to dismissal.
43.The plaint schedule property is compensation amount which is not in the hands of Government but it is already received by the defendant No.1.
The defendant No.7 submitted that the property is belongs to defendant
No.1. The defendant No.1 submitted that the property is ancestral property.
The defendant No.1 took different versions in written statement as well as in his evidence. However, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 failed to produce any documents to show that the property is ancestral property and they are also failed to produce the land acquisition proceedings so also execution proceedings from which proceedings the defendant No.1 received the amount. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the partition suit is not maintainable for the amount received by the defendant No.1 in the land acquisition proceedings.
24 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
44.The learned counsel for the defendant No.1 contended that the suit is not filed within time and it is barred by limitation. The claim is money claim and it should be filed within three years from the date of due. Admittedly, the defendant No.1 received the compensation through execution proceedings in the year 1997 and the plaintiff having any grievance if any, shall be filed suit for recovery of amount but not for partition. As observed above, the partition suit should be filed for all the properties which are joint in nature by explaining the properties which are ancestral in nature . In this case, the plaintiff No.1 filed suit only for compensation amount that too without filing sufficient documents to prove their claim. The plaintiff No.1 filed the suit and plaintiff No.2 transposed as a plaintiff from the position of defendant No.6. The present suit is not maintainable as pointed out above and the claim is barred by limitation. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the plaintiff No.1 is not entitled for the share as claimed in the suit.
I answered the issue Nos.1 and 2 accordingly.
45.Additional Issue
Whether the plaintiffs 3 and 4 are entitled to any share out of the share of deceased 1st plaintiff ?
The plaintiffs 3 and 4 filed rejoinder and submitted that the plaintiff No.1 executed a Will under Ex.A.5 in their favour. It is further contended that the plaintiff No.3 is legally wedded wife of plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.4 is daughter of Plaintiff No.1. The plaintiff 3 and 4 adduced evidence and claimed the share out of the share claimed by the plaintiff No.1. the defendants 8 and 9 vehemently contended that the plaintiff No.3 is not legally wedded wife of his father. The defendant 8 and 9 contended that his father executed a Will under Ex.B.1 and bequeathed his share in decretal amount in OP No.86/1985. The defendant Nos.8 and 9 got examined
DWs.2 and 3 in order to prove the Will.
25 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
46.The suit is filed for partition and it is instituted by the plaintiff No.1 and thereafter the plaintiff No.2 is transposed and then prosecuted the case.
The plaintiffs 3 and 4 are added as parties as the legal heirs of plaintiff No.1 and defendants 8 and 9 are also added as legal heirs of plaintiff No.1.
There is a dispute between plaintiff 3, 4 and defendant Nos.8 and 9. The defendants 8 and 9 disputed the marital relationship between plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.3. The defendants 8 and 9 relied on a will under Ex.B1 and contended that plaintiff No.1 bequeathed the share in compensation awarded in OP 86/1985. The plaintiff 3 and 4 contended that the plaintiff
No.1 executed a Will in their favour by bequeathing the share in compensation awarded in OP No.86/1985. The plaintiff No.1 is died in the year 2007. Ex.B.1 is with date 19.04.2007. Ex.A5 dated 23.11.2006.
47.In a suit for partition the plaintiff has to prove the jointness of the property and then entitlement for their share. In this case, the plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence before the Court to show that the property is ancestral one and to show the cause of action for filing partition suit. The plaintiff No.1 contended that the defendant No.1 received the compensation and failed to distribute the same among the sharers. The plaintiff No.1 instituted partition suit instead of recovery suit. In a partition suit all properties must be included but the present suit is only filed for compensation amount. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the plaintiffs failed to prove the schedule property is ancestral one and it is liable for partition. Further, the property is not in existence and it is received by the defendant No.1. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the plaintiff No.1 is not entitled for share as claimed in the suit. Therefore, there is no need to gone into the issues raised by the defendant Nos.8 and 9 and also issues raised by the plaintiff 3 and 4 in respect of marital status of plaintiff No.3 and validity of Wills filed under Ex.A5 and Ex.B.1. In these circumstances, the ratio laid down in 2007 (5) ALD 97 (SC) Benga Behera 26 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
and another vs. Braja Kishore Nanda and Others and the ratio laid
down in 2014(5) ALD 741 Mathangi Devasahayam v. Jetty Manikyamma
and Others is way helpful to the defendants 8 and 9. In view of the finding on issue No.1, the plaintiff No.1 is not entitled for share and therefore, the plaintiffs 3 and 4 are also not entitled for share in the compensation amount. Accordingly, I answered the additional issue.
48.Issue No.3
To What Relief?
In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr.II directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 26 th day of March, 2026. Sd/-K.
K.V.Buli KrishnaSd/
SdSd/- K.K.V.Bulikrishna
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Sr. Dvn.),
ELURU.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFFS:-
P.W.1: Edala Satyanarayana (eschewed)
P.W.2: Yedri Kowsalya
P.W.3:Edala Rajani
P.W.4:Mangisetti Venkateswara rao
P.W.5:Varikuti Satyanarayana
P.W.6: Yaganti Venkata rao 27 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
FOR DEFENDANTS:-
D.W.1:Edala Pothuraju
D.W.2: Immani Venkateswara Rao
D.W.3: Alla Uma Maheswara Rao
D.W.4:Alla Sujatha
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFFS:-
Ex A.1/-- Office copy of legal notice dated 28.8.2000
Ex A.2/--Postal acknowledgment of Defendant No.1
Ex.A.3/-Postal acknowledgment of Defendant No.8
Ex. A.4/ Xerox copy of family member certificate issued by MRO, T.Narsapuram dated 28.2.2002
Ex A.5/ --Office copy of the petition submitted by DLSA, Eluru dated 30.8.2000
Ex A.6/--Postal acknowledgment dt.01.09.2000
Ex A.7/--Letter from DLSA, Eluru dt.04.09.2000
EX.A.8/--Office copy of the letter dt.10.09.2000
Ex.A.9/ --Postal acknowledgment of DLSA, Eluru
Ex:A.10/ -- Original Will dt.23.11.2006 executed by Edala Satyanarayan
Ex A.11/--True copy of ration card
Ex A.12/--Original family members certificate issued by the Tahsildar, T.Narsapur, dt.23.6.2007
Ex A.13/--Original study certificate of plaintiff dt.20.09.2007
Ex.A.14/-Original marriage photograph of 8th defendant along with CD
Ex.A.15/-Original marriage photograph of 8th defendant along with CD
Ex.A.16/-Original marriage photograph of 8th defendant along with CD
Ex.A.17/-Original marriage photograph of 8th defendant along with CD
Ex:A.18/-- Indiramma Housing Bill certificate (Original) 28 | P a g e
Original Suit No.94 of 2002 PCJ (Sr. Dvn.), Eluru.
FOR DEFENDANTS:
Ex.B.1/- Certified copy of Will dated 19.4.2007
I /Id/- K.K.V.B.K P.C.J. (Sr.Dvn.), Eluru.
29 | P a g e