O.S.No. 99 of 2015, Dt. 30.03.2026
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE [SENIOR DIVISION], PARCHUR
Present: Ms.K.Prasanthi,
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parchur.
Monday, this the 30th day of March, 2026
Original Suit No. 99 of 2015
Between:
1. Konduri Anuradha, W/o. Srinivasareddy (Late) Aged 32 years, Hindu, Housewife,
2. Konduri Naga Lasya, D/o. Srinivasareddy(Late) Aged 8 years, Being minor Rep. By it next friend, Natural Guardian/mother 1st plaintiff/K. Anuradha,
Both plaintiffs are R/o. D.No.8-190, Redlalompa, Vetapalem, Chriala. . . . . . . Plaintiffs
AND
1. Konduri Satyavathi, S/o. Krishna Reddy, (Late), Aged 59 years,
2. Konduri Rami Reddy, s/o. Krishna Reddy, Aged 35 years,
Defendants 1 and 2 are Hindu, R/o. Redlalompa Vetapalem.
3. Tiyyagura Padmavathi W/o. Chandrasekhara Reddy, Aged 41 years, Housewife, R/o. Pandaripuram, Chilakaluripet.
4. Konduri Adilakshmi @ Vadde Adilakshmi, W/o. Anji Reddy, Aged 50 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o. Ravuru Road, Vetpalem, Chirala. (D4 added as per Orders in I.A.No. 2/20 dated 28.12.2020)
5. Kothagorla Nageswaramma, W/o. Vigneswara Rao, Aged 39 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Santharavuru Village, Chinnaganjam Mandal. (D5 added as per Orders in I.A.No.6/2024 Dated 28.09.2024) (5th defendant added as per Orders in I.A.No. 488/2022 dated 21.12.2022)
….. Defendants.
O.S.No. 99 of 2015, Dt. 30.03.2026
This suit presented before me for Judgment today i.e., on 30.03.2026, in the presence of Sri P. Surendra, D. R. Chowdary, P. Surendra, D. R. Chowdary, Advocate for plaintiffs and of Y. Venkateswara Rao, Y. Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the Defendants No.1 & 2, Sri. G. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for the Defendant No.4 and the defendants No.3 & 5 remained exparte, and upon perusing the plaint, and other connected material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
// J U D G M E N T //
01. The Plaintiffs filed this suit for preliminary decree of partition of plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiffs with metes and bounds and division of the same; to award future mesne profits and costs of the suit.
02. The brief averments of the Plaint are as follows:
The husband of 1st plaintiff is the son of 1st defendant, 2nd defendant is brother-in-law, 3rd defendant is sister-in-law of 1st plaintiff. One Konduri
Krishna Reddy was the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.
Item No.1 of plaint schedule property was purchased by the said Krishna
Reddy on 01.04.1987 under registered sale deed from Sanam
Suryanarayana and others for valuable consideration of Rs.35,150/-. Item
No.2 & 3 of plaint schedule properties were purchased by the said Krishna
Reddy on 31.05.1982 under registered sale deed from Muddana Siva Linga
Prasad for valuable consideration of Rs.12,925/-. Since the date of purchase the said Krishna Reddy used to cultivate the schedule land till his death, he died intestate about 10 years back, leaving behind defendants 1 to 3 and plaintiff’s husband Konduri Srinivasa Reddy as his Class I heirs. As the defendants 1 to 3 and the said Konduri Srinivasa Reddy have 1/ 4th share in the schedule properties. For all the years, subsequent to the death of K. Krishna Reddy the defendants 1 to 3 are enjoying the usufruct of the schedule property at a rate of Rs.50,000/- per year and both plaintiffs have ratable share in the said amounts towards future mesne profits to be ascertained on enquiry. Subsequently, the said Konduri Srinivasa Reddy
O.S.No. 99 of 2015, Dt. 30.03.2026
died intestate on 05.09.2014 leaving behind plaintiffs, defendants 1 to 3 as his class I legal heirs. After the death of Srinivasa Reddy the 1/ 4th share was devolved upon plaintiffs, though the plaintiffs requesting the defendants for amicable partition of schedule property, the defendants did not co-operate for the same. Hence, the plaintiffs constrained to file the suit for partition.
03.The Defendant No.1 filed written statementwritten statement by denying the allegations mentioned in plaint and further stated that, the genealogy filed by the plaintiffs is false. One Konduri Krishna Reddy has adopted daughter by name Vadde Audilakshmi. At first, the said Krishna Reddy due to issuless adopted one Vadde Audilakshmi, later he had Padmavathi, Srinivasa Reddy and Ramireddy as daughter and sons. The said Vadde Audilakshmi is also one of the necessary party to the suit. The husband of plaintiff being a joint family member, registered some land document in S.No. 480/2,in favour of his daughter i.e., 2nd plaintiff which was purchased by Krishna Reddy on 30.09.2000 from Veeramma for valuable consideration of Rs.40,000/-. So the land also relating to joint family property. Till the death of husband of 1st plaintiff, plaintiffs and defendants lived jointly, the 1st plaintiff trying to create agreement of sale to obtain properties, but the defendants obstructed them, for which the plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.113/2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Chirala, and the same was pending.
Instead of that the land which was acquired from Bandaru Vigneswara Rao at Kodavalivarpalem, for an extent of Ac.2.38 cents will be added as another item and division of property, otherwise, Ac.2.38 cents will be allotted to plaintiffs and remaining three items allotted to defendants 1 to 3 and prays to decree the suit according to law.
04.The 3rd defendant filed written statementwritten statement denying the allegations mentioned in plaint and further stated that, her parents had not begotton any children for a considerable time, they adopted the Adilakshmi who is no other than the grand daughter of Sathyavathi’s sister, when she was less than 7 or 8 years old since then the said Adilakshmi was brought up in the
O.S.No. 99 of 2015, Dt. 30.03.2026
hands of defendants parents and also educated by admitting her in Z.P.P.
Girls High School, Vetapalem relying the said Adilakshmi’s surname is
Konduri, Daughter of Krishna Reddy and her date of birth is 20.05.1968 and at the time of marriage, her adopted parents promised to give equal share along with other sons and daughter, and defendants father died on 18.09.2004 intestate, in family certificate also the name of Adilakshmi was also mentioned as a successors of Late Krishna Reddy. Therefore the plaintiffs purposefully omitted the name of Adilakshmi as a party to the suit, so the presence of Adilakshmi is also very much required and the suit is also bad for non – joinder of proper and necessary party. The said Vadde
Adilakshmi is the first and eldest daughter of deceased Krishna Reddy and she is also equally entitled 1/ 5th share in the plaint schedule properties. As per Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, when a male person died intestate his mother is also a class I heir along with other siblings i.e., wife and daughter. So Sathyavathi who is mother of late Srinivasa Reddy is also entitled 1/ 3rd share in 1/ 10th extent, so the share claimed by the plaintiffs are against law and prays to decide the matter according to law.
05.The 4th defendant filed written statementwritten statement by denying the allegations mentioned in plaint and further stated that, she was adopted by her father
Late Krishnareddy, when she was months baby and admitted in Z.P.P. High
School, Vetapalem and she studied up to S.S.C. and her father name was mentioned in school records as Krishnareddy. Later, her father performed her marriage on 12.08.1984 at his own house and the wedding card also discloses the names of Krishnareddy with Sathyavathi. During wedlock she blessed with one daughter namely Krishna Priya. The husband of 4th defendant addicted to bad vices and left the matrimonial house, as such her needs and necessities were looked after by her father Krishna Reddy till his death i.e., on 18.09.2004. Therefore, this defendant is also a co-parcener.
The 4th defendant adoptive father late Krishnareddy purchased the suit schedule properties along with other properties. The late Krishna reddy purchased an extent of Ac.2.38 ½ cents in S.No.480/2 of
O.S.No. 99 of 2015, Dt. 30.03.2026
Kodavaliavaripalem Village, by paying an amount of Rs.40,000/- in advance agreeing to purchase it at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per acre and executed agreement of sale on 30.09.2000 in favour of Bandaru Veeramma. Later the said Krishnareddy also paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- on 07.03.2001 so also another amount of Rs.20,000/- on 05.05.2001 to Bandaru Veeramma. The said Bandaru Veeramma also died her sons received the above sale consideration. After death of 4th defendant adoptive father in the year 2004, the deceased husband of 1st plaintiff Srinivasa Reddy acted as a manager of their family, and obtained other documents by creating some false documents and he sold Ac.1.38 ½ cents in S.No.480/2 to Kothagorla
Nageswaramma by executing documents through the original vendors L.Rs i.e., children of Bandaru Veeramma on 06.08.2012 by getting registered document and on the same day for the remaining extent out of Ac.2.38 ½ cents the said Srinivasa Reddy also got taken registered sale deed in the name of his daughter i.e., 2nd plaintiff without paying any actual consideration. In fact the entire sale consideration for an extent of Ac.2.38 ½ cents already paid by Krishna Reddy during his life time . So the written statement schedule property to be treated as joint family property of Late
Krishnareddy and the 4th defendant also filing separate application to add this item also as a joint family property.
The 1st plaintiff lodged a false complaint before S.H.O. Vetapalem to get more dowry from 1st plaintiff parents and case was numbered as
C.C.48/2016, in which the 4th defendant figured as 5th accused. The 1st plaintiff is arrogant person and not dutiful wife to her husband and he faced lot of difficulties in the hand of 1st plaintiff and he sustained lot of medical difficulties consequently he last his breath on 05.09.2014. The 1st plaintiff way of thinking and behaviour is highly objectionable and she is more selfish lady and accustomed to file lot of criminal and civil cases against the joint family members and her husband with a view to harass them without any just reason. The 1st plaintiff husband Srinivasa Reddy worked in CAPAL and BRAHMAS AGRO Industries Pvt., Ltd., Jandrapeta and he used two
O.S.No. 99 of 2015, Dt. 30.03.2026
above companies prior to his death and the 1st plaintiff falsely claimed all the death benefits of her husband from the above two companies suppressing the real factum of 1st defendant survival in the present suit.
After death of Srinivasa Reddy, the 1st plaintiff got obtained a lum-sum amount more thatn 2 millions from the Insurance Authorities without giving legitimate share to 1st defendant as a mother of deceased Srinivasa Reddy i.e., 1st defendant by creating false documents mentioning false claims and prays to decide the shares according to law.
06.The plaintiffs filed rejoinder by denying the allegations of 4th defendant and further stated that, the daughter of 4th defendant is niece of deceased Konduri Krishnareddy, 4th defendant is arrogant in nature, due to her behaviour her husband abandoned. Later, her daughter Krishna Priya was married with 2nd defendant. Late Krishnareddy purchased Ac.2.38 ½ cents in S.No.480/2, after death of Krishnareddy, husband of 1st plaintiff being manger of joint family, got registered sale deed in the name of 2nd plaintiff for an extent of Ac.1.00 remaining extent Ac.1.38 ½ cents sold to one Kothagorla Nageswaramma are all invented story of the defendants.
The landed property an extent of Ac.1.00 was purchased in the name of minor 2nd plaintiff is the exclusive property of the plaintiff No.2. It was purchased in the name of 2nd plaintiff with the funds her mother/1st plaintiff. All the defendants conspired created documents and false story, in order to clutch the property of 2nd plaintiff, who is the minor, in the eye of law she is juristic person. The original agreement of sale in possession of plaintiff, the land was purchased by late Krishnareddy, sale consideration passed from the joint family by Late Srinivasa reddy and obtained sale deed in the name of plaintiff No.2 for an extent of Ac.1.00 and sold Ac.1.38 ½ cents to K. Nageswaramma and that property stands in the name of minor plaintiff is also joint family property liable to be partition , are out and out, and it is all puppet show by litigiou defendants. The story of defendants is only a black mail tactics, the defendants made so many illegal efforts and threaten action against the helpless widow and innocent plaintiff to
O.S.No. 99 of 2015, Dt. 30.03.2026
demand to with draw the criminal case and the present suit. The alleged agreement of sale dated 30.09.2020 and 10.09.2022 and wedding card etc., impugned documents are created and concocted by defendants to wrongul gain. Hence, no merits in pleas of documents and the suit is liable to be decreed as prayed for with costs.
07.Basing on the pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:
1. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary party i.e., Vadde Adilakshmi? (Struck off)
2. Whether the mother of Late Srinivasa Reddy i.e., Sathyavathi is
entitled to 1/ 3 rd share in 1/ 10 th extent according to notional
partition?
3. Whether the land to an extent of Ac.2.38 cents in S.No.480/2 is
joint family property as contended by the defendants?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree of partition as prayed for and if so, to what share?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future mesne profits?
6. To what relief?
Basing on the amended plaint, written statement of 4 th
defendant and rejoinder, the issue No.1 struck off and the following
additional Issues are settled for trial:
1. Whether the 4 th defendant is the adopted daughter of late Koduri Krishna Reddy and Defendant No.1?
2. Whether the 4 th defendant is entitled to a share in joint family property?
3. To what relief?
08.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked, on behalf of defendants
DW1 and DW2 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B36 were marked.
09.Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record and written arguments filed by both parties.
O.S.No. 99 of 2015, Dt. 30.03.2026
Issues No.2 & 3, Additional Issues No. 1 & 2:
10. The case of the plaintiffs is that, one Konduri Krishna Reddy and the 1st defendant are blessed with three children i.e., 2nd defendant , 3rd defendant and one Srinivasa Reddy, the said Srinivasa Reddy died intestate leaving plaintiffs 1 and 2 as his legal heirs. So the relationship between the parties is not in dispute except the relationship with 4th defendant. The 1st defendant is the mother-in-law to the 1st plaintiff and grand mother to the 2nd plaintiff, the 2nd defendant is the son to 1st defendant and the 3rd defendant is daughter to 1st defendant. It is also not in dispute that the plaint schedule properties are self acquired properties of one Konduriplaint schedule properties are
Krishna Reddy, said Krishna Reddy died intestate leaving behind defendants 1 to 3 and one Srinivasa Reddy, who is the husband of 1st plaintiff and father of 2nd plaintiff. After death of Srinivasa Reddy the plaintiffs requested for partition, but the defendants 1 to 3 not came forward. Pending suit the 4th defendant was impleaded claiming that she is the adopted daughter of late Konduri Krishna Reddy and 1st defendant.
11.The contention of the defendants is that, the 4th defendant is the adopted daughter of Konduri Krishna Reddy and 1st defendant and she is also entitled share in the joint family property. According to plaintiffs the 4th defendant is not the adopted daughter of Konduri Krishna Reddy and 1st defendant. In support of the case of the plaintiffs the 1st plaintiff is examined as PW1, two third party witnesses were examined as PW2 and
PW3. On behalf of the defendants the 1st defendant is examined as DW1, the 2nd defendant examined as DW2 and the 4th defendant is examined as
DW3.
12.As seen from the evidence of DW1 to DW3, they categorically admitted in cross-examination that they have no objection with regard to the pleadings of plaintiff and their only objection is that the 4th defendant the adoptive daughter of Krishna Reddy and she is also entitled for share.
Apart from the oral evidence of DW1 to DW3 the defendants filed Ex.B1 to
Ex.B5. Ex.B1 family member certificate of Konduri Krishna Reddy issued
O.S.No. 99 of 2015, Dt. 30.03.2026
by the MRO Vetapalem, which disclose the name of 4th defendant, Ex.B2 is the date of birth certificate of 4th defendant issued by ZP High School,
Vetapalem, Ex.B3 is the wedding card of 4th defendant which reflects the name of Konduri Krishna Reddy as her father. As per the recitals in written statement it was mentioned that the 4th defendant is the foster daughter of late Konduri Krishna Reddy. But as per the evidence of DW1 to DW3 the 4th defendant is the adoptive daughter of late Konduri Krishna Reddy. An adoptive daughter claiming a share in partition suit must prove the valid adoption under Hindu Adoption and maintenance Act 1956, by producing registered adoption deed., if no deed exists she must prove the actual ceremony of giving and taking according to Sec. 11 of Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, and other necessary ceremonies. The burden of proof lies on the person claiming adoption to prove the said aspects. If the adoption is proved the adopted person will have the same rights as the natural born person including the right to claim a share in the coparcenary property. In the present case, except the oral evidence of DW1 to DW3 who are the family members, the defendants have not examined any friends or relations to prove the valid adoption . On perusal of Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 do not reflect that the 4th defendant is adopted daughter of late Konduri Krishna Reddy and 1st defendant. merely relying on the recital in Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 showing the name of father of 4th defendant as Konduri Krishna Reddy, it is unsafe to conclude that, the 4th defendant is the adopted daughter of Konduri
Krishna Reddy and 1st defendant.
13.In view of foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that, the defendants failed to prove that the 4th defendant is adopted daughter of late
Krishna Reddy and 1st defendant and so she is not entitled share in the schedule property. Admittedly the plaint schedule propertyschedule propertyplaint schedule property is the self acquired property of Konduri Krishna Reddy and he died intestate, after the death of Konduri Krishna Reddy the plaintiffs, defendants 1 to 3 are in joint and constructive possession and so the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of
O.S.No. 99 of 2015, Dt. 30.03.2026
plaint schedule properties as prayed for. Accordingly issues 2 & 3 andplaint schedule properties
Additional Issues 1 & 2 are answered.
Issues No.4 :
14. In view of the findings given by this Court, in Issues 1 to 3, the suit is decreed as prayed for.
Issues No. 5 & 6:
15.In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed for partition of plaintIn the result, the suit is preliminary decreed for partition of plaint schedule properties into 4 equal shares and to allot one such share to theschedule properties into 4 equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiffs with metes and bounds and with separate possession . plaintiffs with metes and bounds and with separate possession .
The plaintiffs are directed to file separate application for futureThe plaintiffs are directed to file separate application for future mesne profits. mesne profits.
The parties shall comply the terms of preliminary decree within twoThe parties shall comply the terms of preliminary decree within two months lestmonths lest the parties are at liberty to proceed for final decree for the parties are at liberty to proceed for final decree for allotment of their due shares. allotment of their due shares.
In view of relationship between both the parties, they shall bear theirIn view of relationship between both the parties, they shall bear their own costs. own costs.
Typed my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court on this the 30 th day of March, 2026.
CIVIL JUDGE [SENIOR DIVISION],
PARCHUR.
//APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE//
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFFS: PW1: Karanam Ravi PW2 : Maddineni Venkateswarlu PW3 : Bathula Subba Rao
FOR DEFENDANTS: DW1: Marella Srinu DW1: Mandava Venkata Subba Rao
O.S.No. 99 of 2015, Dt. 30.03.2026
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A1:Certified copy of gift deed dated 20.10.2014 vide Document No.1087/2014 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant. Ex.A2:Office copy of legal notice dated 02.01.2015 Ex.A3:Postal receipts Ex.A4:Postal acknowledgments Ex.A5:Reply notice dated 10.03.2015 Ex.A6:Registered general power of attorney dated 03.02.2015 executed by 7th plaintiff in favour of 6th plaintiff. Ex.A7:Certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.95/2016 on the file of
Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Parchur
Ex.A8:Certified copy of written statement in O.S.No.95/2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Parchur. Ex.A9:Certified copy of order in I.A.No.488/2016 in O.S.No.95/2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Parchur.
FOR DEFENDANTS:
Ex.B1:Pattadar passbook Ex.B2:Title deed Ex.B3:Certified copy of sale deed dated 13.03.2019 Ex.B4:Certified copy of photographs (Marked subject to proof and relevancy as CD is not produced) Ex.B5:Certified copy ofDeath Certificate of Marella Subbaravamma. Ex.B6:Certified copy of Certificate issued by VRO, Inkollu. Ex.B7:Certified copy of 1-B Namuna Ex.B8:Certified copy of Adangal Ex.B9:Certified copy of Voter ID card of Subbaravamma Ex.B10:Certified copy of Dakal Deed, dated 20.10.2014 Ex.B11:Certified copy of sale deed dated 22.02.2010.
O.S.No. 99 of 2015, Dt. 30.03.2026
Ex.B12:Certified copy of representation given by 1st defendant to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of A.P. Hon‘ble High Court Ex.B13:Acknowledgments five in number Ex.B14:Certified copy of report given by Marella Brahmam to the S.H.O., Inkollu Police Station. Ex.B15:Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.56/2015 Ex.B16:Certified copy of Election I.D. Card and Adhar Card of Marella Subaravamm. Ex.B17:Certified copy of photographs four in number (Marked subject to proof and relevancy as CD is not produced) Ex.B18:Certified copy of Electricity Bill Ex.B19:Certified copy of Electricity Bill Ex.B20:Certified copy of Electricity Bill Ex.B21:Certified copy of Electricity Bill Ex.B22:Certified copy of property tax receipt Ex.B23:Certified copy of property tax receipt Ex.B24:Certified copy of property tax receipt Ex.B25:Certified copy of property tax receipt Ex.B26:Certified copy of property tax receipt Ex.B27:Certified copy of property tax receipt Ex.B28:Certified copy of Electricity Bill Ex.B29:Certified copy of Electricity Bill Ex.B30:Certified copy of Electricity Bill Ex.B31:Certified copy of Electricity Bill Ex.B32:Certified copy of 1-B Ex.B33:Certified copy of Adangal Ex.B34:Certified copy of Adangal issued by Tahsildar, Inkollu. Ex.B35:Certified copy of registered mortgage deed, dated 26.08.2020. Ex.B36:Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 13.03.2019.
S.C.J., PARCHUR.
O.S.No. 99 of 2015, Dt. 30.03.2026
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE [SENIOR DIVISION], PARCHUR
Present: Ms.K.Prasanthi,
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parchur.
Monday, this the 30th day of March, 2026
Original Suit No. 99 of 2015
Between:
1. Konduri Anuradha, W/o. Srinivasareddy (Late) Aged 32 years, Hindu, Housewife,
2. Konduri Naga Lasya, D/o. Srinivasareddy(Late) Aged 8 years, Being minor Rep. By it next friend, Natural Guardian/mother 1st plaintiff/K. Anuradha,
Both plaintiffs are R/o. D.No.8-190, Redlalompa, Vetapalem, Chriala. . . . . . . Plaintiffs
AND
1. Konduri Satyavathi, S/o. Krishna Reddy, (Late), Aged 59 years,
2. Konduri Rami Reddy, s/o. Krishna Reddy, Aged 35 years,
Defendants 1 and 2 are Hindu, R/o. Redlalompa Vetapalem.
3. Tiyyagura Padmavathi W/o. Chandrasekhara Reddy, Aged 41 years, Housewife, R/o. Pandaripuram, Chilakaluripet.
4. Konduri Adilakshmi @ Vadde Adilakshmi, W/o. Anji Reddy, Aged 50 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o. Ravuru Road, Vetpalem, Chirala. (D4 added as per Orders in I.A.No. 2/20 dated 28.12.2020)
5. Kothagorla Nageswaramma, W/o. Vigneswara Rao, Aged 39 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Santharavuru Village, Chinnaganjam Mandal. (D5 added as per Orders in I.A.No.6/2024 Dated 28.09.2024) (5th defendant added as per Orders in I.A.No. 488/2022 dated 21.12.2022)
… .. Defendants. … .. Defendants.
O.S.No. 99 of 2015, Dt. 30.03.2026
The Plaintiffs filed this suit for preliminary decree of partition of plaintThe Plaintiffs filed this suit for preliminary decree of partition of plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and allot one such share for theschedule properties into four equal shares and allot one such share for the plaintiffs with meet and bounds and division of the same; to award futureplaintiffs with meet and bounds and division of the same; to award future mesne profits and costs of the suit.mesne profits and costs of the suit.
Plaint presented on 30.04.2015 and filed on 30.04.2015Plaint presented on 30.04.2015 and filed on 30.04.2015
Cause of action: : Cause of action
Cause of action for the suit arose when the husband of the 1stCause of action for the suit arose when the husband of the 1st plaintiff namely plaintiff namely Konduri Srinivasa Reddy died on 05.09.2014 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his class-IKonduri Srinivasa Reddy died on 05.09.2014 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his class-I heirs, and when both plaintiffs have been demanding the defendants for amicableheirs, and when both plaintiffs have been demanding the defendants for amicable partition of the plaint schedule properties, but the defendants did not co-operate forpartition of the plaint schedule properties, but the defendants did not co-operate for the same, that the plaint schedule property is stated at Kodavalivaripalem Villagethe same, that the plaint schedule property is stated at Kodavalivaripalem Village within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
Valuation::Valuation
For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued for For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued for
Item No.1 market value of Ac.1.85 cents Rs.5,55,000/-, 1/ 4thItem No.1 market value of Ac.1.85 cents Rs.5,55,000/-, 1/ 4th share of plaintiff is share of plaintiff is Rs.1,38,750/-, 3/ 4thRs.1,38,750/-, 3/ 4th of the same is Rs.1,04,062/-; of the same is Rs.1,04,062/-;
Item No.2 market value property is Rs.75,000/-, 1/ 4thItem No.2 market value property is Rs.75,000/-, 1/ 4th share of plaintiff is share of plaintiff is Rs.18,750/-, 3/ 4thRs.18,750/-, 3/ 4th of the same is Rs.14,062/-; of the same is Rs.14,062/-;
Item No.3 market value of property is Rs.2,88,750/-, 1/ 4thItem No.3 market value of property is Rs.2,88,750/-, 1/ 4th share of plaintiff is share of plaintiff is Rs.72,187/-, 3/ 4thRs.72,187/-, 3/ 4th of the same is Rs.54,140/-; of the same is Rs.54,140/-;
Total value of plaint schedule propertyTotal value of plaint schedule property is Rs. 9,18,750/-, plaintiff 1/ 4 is Rs. 9,18,750/-, plaintiff 1/ 4thth share is share is Rs. 2,29,687.50/- 3/ 4thRs. 2,29,687.50/- 3/ 4th of the same is Rs.1,72,666/- of the same is Rs.1,72,666/-
On which a Court fee of Rs..200/- is paid under Sec. 34(2) of APCF & SV Act,On which a Court fee of Rs..200/- is paid under Sec. 34(2) of APCF & SV Act, as plaintiffs and defendants are in joint and constructive possession of plaintas plaintiffs and defendants are in joint and constructive possession of plaint schedule property.schedule property.
This suit presented before me for Judgment today i.e., on 30.03.2026,This suit presented before me for Judgment today i.e., on 30.03.2026, in the presence of Sriin the presence of Sri P. Surendra, D. R. Chowdary, P. Surendra, D. R. Chowdary, Advocate for Advocate for plaintiffs and of Y. Venkateswara Rao,plaintiffs and of Y. Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the Defendants No.1 Advocate for the Defendants No.1 & 2, Sri. G. Pradeep Kumar& 2, Sri. G. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for the Defendant No.4 and the, Advocate for the Defendant No.4 and the defendants No.3 & 5 remained exparte, and upon perusing the plaint, anddefendants No.3 & 5 remained exparte, and upon perusing the plaint, and other connected material papers on record and having stood over forother connected material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree:consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree:
i.That the suit be and the same is hereby preliminary decreed for partition of plaint schedule properties in to 4 equal shares and equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiffs with metes andallot one such share to the plaintiffs with metes and bounds and with separate possession;bounds and with separate possession;
O.S.No. 99 of 2015, Dt. 30.03.2026
ii.That the plaintiffs be and the same are hereby directed toThat the plaintiffs be and the same are hereby directed to file separate application for future mesne profits; file separate application for future mesne profits; iiiThat the parties shall comply the terms of preliminaryThat the parties shall comply the terms of preliminary decree within two months lestdecree within two months lest the parties are at liberty to the parties are at liberty to proceed for final decree for allotment of their due shares;proceed for final decree for allotment of their due shares; iv.That each party do bear their own costs. Costs of plaintiff : Rs.17,137/- (Institutional costs) (CM & FC not filed) Costs of Defendant : Rs.NIL (CM & FC not filed) (schedule attached herewith)
Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the 30Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the 30 th th day of March, day of March, 2026. 2026.
CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),
PARCHUR. PARCHUR.
TABLE OF COSTS TABLE OF COSTS
For PlaintiffFor Defendant Stamp on Vakalath2-00 Stamp on Plaint 200-00 Process400-00 Stamp on petitions 10-00 (CM & FC not filed) Stamp on documents 10-00 Senior Advocate Fee 12,086-00 Junior Advocate Fee4,029-00 Type charges200-00 Writing charges200-00 Total17,137-00 NIL
S.C.J., PARCHUR. S.C.J., PARCHUR.
NOTE:- The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all theNOTE:- The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all the exhibits, which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable toexhibits, which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to destroy after the stipulated period from this date.destroy after the stipulated period from this date.
O.S.No. 99 of 2015, Dt. 30.03.2026