1
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC) :: BAPATLA
Present: Sri K.P. BALAJI.,
VI Addl. District Judge, Bapatla.
Monday, this the 29th day of July, 2024.
O.S.No. 300 of 20 17
Between:
1.Avula Siva Nagendramma (died)
2.Kodali Sitaravamma @ Syam Kumari.… Plaintiffs.
And
Talasila Rangamma. … Defendant.
This suit came before me on 18-7-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Narasimha Rao and Sri G. Srihari Rao., Learned counsel for plaintiffs; Sri M.P.R.V. Prasad., Learned counsel for defendant, and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, and upon perusing the 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
Suit for partition, past and future mesne profits and for costs.
2.During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff died and the 2nd plaintiff was brought on record as per order dt. 27.9.2022.
3.The averments in the amended plaint are as follows :- Originally the plaint schedule property belonged to one Avula Ramaiah. The said Ramaiah has one son by name Sriramurthy and one daughter by name Rangamma (defendant).
One Adiseshamma is the wife of Ramaiah.
4.Avula Ramaiah’s son by name Srirama Murthy married one Siva
Nagendramma i.e., the first plaintiff and he died intestate on 13.5.1961. At that time the 1st plaintiff was pregnant. Subsequently she gave birth to the 2nd plaintiff on 1.8.1961.
5.The father-in-law of the first plaintiff and paternal grandfather of the 2nd plaintiff and father of defendant partitioned his entire properties under regd.
Partition deed dt. 2.11.1961 in between him, his wife Adiseshamma and his daughter-in-law 1st plaintiff and his grand daughter 2nd plaintiff. As per the said regd. Partition deed A schedule mentioned properties therein fell to the share of 2
Avula Ramaiah. B schedule properties fell to the share of his wife Adiseshamma and C schedule properties fell to the share of the plaintiffs. After execution of the partition deed on 2.11.1961 all the respective sharers took possession of their respective shares and have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares.
6.Avula Ramaiah died intestate on 1.4.1975 and he has Class I legal heirs as per Hindu Succession Act i.e., his wife, plaintiffs 1 and 2 and his daughter i.e., the defendant. After the death of Avula Ramaiah, his wife was managing all the properties of late Ramaiah. Thus, Adiseshamma, both the plaintiffs and the defendant were in joint possession of A schedule properties.
7.In the meanwhile the 2nd plaintiff’s marriage was performed with one
Gopala Rao s/o Nageswara Rao on 28.4.1978. After the marriage, the 2nd plaintiff came to Pedaravuru village to lead family life with her husband. Then the first plaintiff also resided along with her daughter/2nd plaintiff. Subsequently both of them sold away their part of C schedule properties that came to their share as per the regd. Partition deed dt. 2.11.1961. After the death of Avula Ramaiah, all the properties came to both plaintiffs, Avula Adiseshamma and defendant and they were in joint possession.
8.After the death of Avula Ramaiah, Adiseshamma, plaintiffs and defendants are entitled to 1/3rd share in the A schedule mentioned properties in the partition deed that fell to his share.
9.On 14.2.2006 Avula Adiseshamma also died intestate leaving behind her legal heirs, i.e., her daughter-in-law – 1st plaintiff, her grand daughter- 2nd plaintiff and the defendant. After the death of Adiseshamma, the share of Avula Ramaiah i.e., A schedule mentioned properties and the share of Adiseshamma i.e., B schedule properties came into management of their daughter i.e., defendant as joint family properties of both plaintiffs and defendant. As per the Hindu
Succession Act, both the plaintiffs have got 1/3rd share, Adiseshamma has got 1/3rd share and the defendant has got 1/3rd share in A schedule property. After the death of Ramaiah and Adiseshamma, the defendant was in possession as joint family manager and all the co-sharers are in joint possession. Now after the 3 death of Adiseshamma, the defendant as joint family manager is in possession of their 1/3rd share . After the death of Adiseshamma, both the plaintiffs have got ½ share in B schedule of the partition deed. Now all the A and B schedule properties are in possession and management of defendant as joint family members and they are in joint possession. During the lifetime of Adiseshamma, number of times they personally and through mediators demanded her to give their 1/3rd share in A schedule of the partition deed and she went on postponing on some pretext or the other.
10.The A and B schedule properties were shown in the plaint like as A an B schedule as shown in the regd. Partition deed dt. 2.11.1961. They are entitled to ½ share in Ramaiah’s A schedule properties and defendant is entitled to the remaining ½ share after the death of Ramaiah and Adiseshamma. Likewise they are entitled to a ½ share in B schedule of the regd. Partition deed after the death of Adiseshamma and the defendant is entitled to the remaining half share.
11.A.Ramaiah’s wife, Adiseshamma has got B(a) schedule property with the assistance of her parents’ money after her marriage. Hence she was in possession and enjoyment of the same. She got pattadar pass book and title deed in which her other properties were also mentioned on 21.9.1988 from MRO.
After her demise both the plaintiffs and defendant have got equal right. Even though they have been demanding the defendant for partition of the properties she went on postponing on some pretext or the other. Hence they got issued a lawyer’s notice on 28.9.2016 which were returned. Notices were again sent to the defendant on 24.4.2017 which was returned on 28.4.2017.
12.During the pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff died on 30.5.2021 leaving behind the 2nd plaintiff as her legal representative and the estate of the first plaintiff devolved on the 2nd plaintiff.
13.The defendant filed written statement contending as follows :- All the allegations made in the plaint except those that are specifically admitted herein to be true are denied as false and they are invented for the purpose of the suit.
Except the relationship between the parties all the other allegations made in the plaint are denied as false and they are invented for the purpose of the suit. It is 4 true originally the plaint schedule properties were the joint family properties of
Avula Ramaiah and his son Sri Rama Murthy. They are Hindus and are governed by Hindu law. They constitute themselves as Hindu Mitakshara joint family consisting of son and father. It is true Avula Srirama Murthy died intestate on 28.4.1961 and he is the husband of the first plaintiff and father of the 2nd plaintiff.
They are the Class I legal heirs of Sriramurthy. After his death, their movable properties were already partitioned between the parties. It is also true that subsequently, on 21.11.1961 the said Avula Ramaiah, the wife and daughter of deceases Sree Rama Murthy i.e., plaintiffs herein were being minors represented by the father of the 1st plaintiff and maternal grand father of 2nd plaintiff by name
Kodalai Satyanarayana, S/o. Managaiah, R/o.Moparru of Tenali Taluq as their guardian and the mother of the deceased Sree Rama Murthy by name Avula
Adiseshamma, W/o.Ramaiah were partitioned their joint family properties under
Regd. Partition Deed, dt.21.11.1961 bearing Doct. No.2054/1961, SRO, Ponnur by metes and bounds and under good and bad quality with septate possession therein. As per the said partition deed, 'A' schedule properties were fell to the share of the said Avula Ramaiah, while B schedule properties were fell to the share of Avula Adiseshamma, W/o.Ramaiah and mother of deceased Avula Sree
Rama Murthy and 'C' schedule properties were fell to the share of the wife and daughter of deceased Sree Rama Murthy/ plaintiffs therein. Ever since the said shares had been in peaceful, physical, possession and enjoyment of their respective share of properties in exclusively by paying necessary land revenue/cist and taxes to the concerned authorities from time to time after mutating their respective names in the concerned official records and to the knowledge of one and all including the plaintiffs. Subsequently, the plaintiffs i.e., the wife and daughter of the deceased Avula Sree Rama Murthy jointly sold away their 'C' schedule properties covered under the above said Regd. Partition deed, dt.21.11.1961to third parties of Munipalle village under respective Regd. Sale deeds which were fell to their share in the said Regd. Partition deed. As per the recitals of the said partition deed, it was specifically mentioned therein that the plaintiffs were partitioned their share of properties along with the in-laws of first plaintiff and they got 'C' schedule properties therein at the instance of elders and mediators. It is also refereed therein that the self acquired property of Avula 5
Ramaiah in an extent of Ac.0.80 cents of wet land covered under the registered gift deed was also impleaded into their joint family properties and partitioned. It is further averred in the said partition deed that all the pronote debts of various creditors of Munipalle village shall be discharged by the father of the deceased
Avula Sree Rama Murthy to the tune of Rs.6000/-, after deducting the earlier part payments made by Avula Ramaiah. The plaintiffs no way concerned in discharging of the said pronote debts to the said respective creditors. At the same time the plaintiffs were agreed that the educational and marriage expenses of the 2nd plaintiff to be borne by her mother/ 1st plaintiff herein. The said Avula
Ramaiah and his wife Adiseshamma are no way concerned in that behalf. As per the recitals of the said Regd. Partition deed the plaintiffs were obtained their share of property under 'C' schedule therein which was valued of Rs.8900/- but whereas the mother of the deceased Sree Rama Murthy who was one of the
Class-I Legal Heir and co-sharer with the plaintiffs after death of Sree Rama
Murthy and she got only worth of property of Rs.1898-75 ps. only. Actually the mother of the deceased should have got share of property worth of Rs.3,599.58 ps., taking into consideration of the position and situation of the plaintiffs, the mother of the deceased Sree Rama Murthy by name Adi Seshamma satisfied with her meager share of property and acted as liberally. And further recited in the said partition deed nobody cannot and shall not question/dispute about their respective shares of properties in future.
14.Subsequently, the mother of the decease Avula Sree Rama Murthy by name
Avula Adiseshamma as an absolute owner, sold away part of B schedule property in an extent of Ac.0.43 cents (Ac.0.42 cents. On ground) covered under Regd.
Partition deed dt.21.11.1961 which corresponds to item No.14 of plaint B schedule property under Regd. Sale deed, dt.9-5-1994 bearing doct. No.707/1994
S.R.O. Ponnur in favour of one Talasila Lakshmiparthi Rao, S/o. Ramaiah, R/o.
Munipalle for a valid consideration of Rs.17,700/- and delivered the physical possession of the same on the even date at Munipalle. Ever since the said bonafide purchaser/ 3rd party Talasila Lakshmipathi Rao has been in peaceful, physical possession and enjoyment of the same in exclusively by paying necessary cist/ Land revenue to the concerned Revenue Department after mutating his name in the Revenue records and to the knowledge of one and all 6 including the plaintiff herein. The Revenue department also recognized his title and possession over the said land and issued pattadar pass book and title deed book (ROR) Adangals, 1B Namuna in his favour. Subsequently, the said purchaser mortgaged the said property under Regd. Mortgage by deposit of his title deed and pass book in favour of the PACS of Munipalle village and availed crop loan.
15.The said Avula Adiseshamma was also sold away in an extent of Ac.0.10 cents of site (dry land) called as hayrick and cattle shed site including 1/ 7th joint right of passage site consisting of 3 items situated in D.Nos.536/15, 17 of
Munipalle, which corresponds to Item Nos.15 to 17 of plaint 'B' schedule properties herein under separate possessory agreements of sale in favour of some 3rd parties / bonafide purchasers namely 1) Chintam Sambasiva Rao, his brother 2) Chintam Nageswara Rao both the sons of Chintam Venkateswarlu of
Munipalle and 3) Beesabattini Sambasiva Rao of Munipalle village. Ever since they have been in peaceful, physical possession and enjoyment of the same in exclusively by paying necessary taxes to the concerned Grama panchayat from time to time after mutating their respective names in the concerned records under Assessment No.801 and 802 and to the knowledge of one and all including the plaintiff's herein. Subsequently, the said Ch. Sambasiva Rao and his brother
Ch. Nageswara Rao both constructed thatched houses therein for their residential purpose and they have been paying house tax to the Gram panchayat of
Munipalle under the above said respective Assessment numbers. The said
Besabattini Sambasiva Rao who in turn sold away his property under Regd. Sale
Deed dt.25.12.1992 bearing Doct. No.2677/1992 of SRO Ponnur in favour of one
Metla Sambasiva Rao of Munipalle for a valid consideration in respect of 120 sq.
yards of site. Ever since the said purchaser Metla Sambasiva Rao has been in peaceful, physical possession and enjoyment of the same in exclusively by paying necessary taxes to the concerned Grama panchayat of Munipalle and to to the knowledge of one and all including the plaintiffs herein.
16.It is utterly false to state that the said Avula Ramaiah and his wife Avula
Adiseshamma were died intestate. But in fact the said Avula Ramaiah and his wife Adiseshamma were got executed a separate last Wills during their lifetimes.
The said Avula Ramaiah got executed his last Will and testament in a sound and 7 disposing state of mind under Regd. Will dt.22-4-1968, bearing doct. No.8/1968 of
Book No.3 of S.R.O. Ponnur and bequeathed all his movable and immovable properties which were fell to him under 'A' schedule of the earlier Regd. Partition deed, dt.21.11.1961 bearing Doct. No.2054/1961 of S.R.O, Ponnur in favour of his daughter/ defendant herein by name Talasiva Rangamma, W/o.Ramaiah with absolute rights. Subsequently the said testator Avula Ramaiah died on 4-2-1974 at Munipalle, but dt.1-4-1975 as mentioned in the plaint. After the death of the said testator Avula Ramaiah, his daughter/ profounder Talasiva Rangamma/ defendant herein is became the absolute owner of the entire 'A' schedule properties covered under the above said Regd. Partition deed, dt.21.11.1961, bearing doct. No.2054/1961, S.R.O; Ponnur which corresponds to plaint 'A' schedule properties herein. Eversince the said profounder/ defendant has been in peaceful, physical possession and enjoyment of the same by paying necessary taxes/Cist to the concerned authorities from time to time and to the knowledge of one and all including the plaintiffs herein. Thus it is clear that the said Avula
Ramaiah was died in testamentary capacity i.e., by executing a Regd. Will in favour of his own daughter/ defendant during his life time. Thus the question of partition does not arise in any stretch of imagination in respect of plaint 'A' schedule properties. Subsequently, on the basis of the said Regd. Will dt.22.4.1968 bearing doct. No.8/1968 book No.3 of SRO, Ponnur, the said profounder/ defendant herein sold away some part ofp the A schedule properties covered under Regd. Partition deed dt.21.11.1961 bearing doct. No.2054/1961,
S.R.O. Ponnur in an extent of 62 sq. yards and 55 sq. yards total comes to 117 sq.
yards together with a old country tiled house therein but as per the measurements it comes to 119 sq. yards which corresponds to item No.9 and 10 of plaint 'A' schedule properties herein under Regd. Sale deed dt.11.12.2006 bearing doct. No.2990/2006 of S.R.O., Ponnur in favour of one Talasila Ranga Rao,
S/o. Sambasiva Rao native of Munipalle village and presently residing at Santhi
Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad for a valid consideration and delivered the physical possession of the same on the even date at Munipalle. But however the said purchaser removed the existing old superstructure therein and thereafter got registered the same as vacant. Ever since the said purchaser has been in peaceful, physical possession and enjoyment of the same in exclusively by paying 8 necessary taxes to the concerned Gram panchayat of Munipalle from time to time and to the knowledge of one and all including the plaintiffs. Thus it is clear the said Regd. Will of said Avula Ramaiah is genesis of title or sources of title of the defendant in disposing of the above said item No.9 and 10 of plaint 'A' schedule properties herein.
17.The wife of Avula Ramaiah by name Avula Adiseshamma was also got executed her last Will and testament in a sound and disposing state of mind under Un-registered Will dt.10.4.2001 and bequeathed her remaining property of
Ac.0.48 cents of wet land situate in D.No.401/5 of Munipalle village which corresponds to item No.13 of plaint 'B' schedule properties which were fell to her share under 'B' schedule of the earlier Regd. Partition deed, dt.21.11.1961, bearing doct. No.2054/1961, S.R.O., Ponnur in favour of her grand daughter i.e., eldest daughter of the defendant by name Oruganti Jhansi Lakshmi, W/o.Oruganti
Venkateswara Rao presently residing in Visakhapatnam with absolute rights.
Subsequently the said testatrix Avula Adiseshamma died on 13.2.2006 at
Munipalle. After the death of said testatrix Avula Adiseshamma, her grand daughter (daughter's daughter)/ profounder Oruganti Jhansi Lakshmi is became the absolute owner of the part of the 'B' schedule properties of the above said
Regd. Partition deed, dt.21.11.1961, bearing doct. No.2054/1961, S.R.O. Ponnur which corresponds to item No.13 of plaint 'B' schedule property herein.
18.The alleged plaint 'B(a)' schedule is not in existence right from t he beginning. The alleged plaint 'B(a)' schedule properties are shown neither in the
Regd. Partition deed, dt.21.11.1961, bearing doct. No.2054/1961, S.R.O. Ponnur nor in the last Will and Testament dt.10.4.2001 of Avula Adiseshamma. Even the said Avula Adiseshamma was never in possession and enjoyment of the same during her lifetime. It is utterly false to state that the said Avula Adiseshamma was acquired plaint 'B(a)' schedule property with the assistance of her parents money after her marriage and the said plaint 'B(a)' schedule property was in possession and enjoyment of the said Adiseshamma and the same was mentioned in her pattadar passbook and title deed book for Patta No.46 on 21.9.1998 by M.R.O. Ponnur. It is equally false to state that after death of the said
Avula Adiseshamma, her legal heirs i.e., plaintiffs and the defendants have got 9 equal rights in the said plaint 'B(a)' schedule property. It is utterly false to state that after the death of Adiseshamma all the plaint A, B and 'B(a)' schedule properties were in joint possession of both the plaintiffs and defendant. It is pertinent to note that the alleged plaint 'B(a)' schedule property as shown in the plaint is misconceived both on facts and under law. In as much as the plaintiffs got falsely mentioned the said 'B(a)' schedule property in plaint due to mis- understanding or oversight in respect of the entries of Revenue Records such as
Adangal and 1B Namoona (ROR) as follows:
19.Originally the land situated in D. no.536/15 and 17 of Munipalle village in an extent of Ac.0.10 cents of dry land (Hayrick and cattle shed site) which is consisting of 3 items (9 cents + ½ cent + undivided 1/ 7th share in joint passage site) out of Ac.0.67 cents are already covered under 'B' schedule of the said Regd.
Partition deed, dt.21.11.1961. Subsequently the said extent of Ac.0.67 cents situated in D.No.536/15 was sub-division as Ac.0.07 cents and Ac.0.60 cents. The said Ac.0.07 cents was belongs to Adiseshamma, while the remaining Ac.0.60 cents belongs to Gollamudipadu Velangi Rao, resident of Gollamudipadu village.
Secondly the another extent of Ac.0.03 cents of dry land situated in D.No.536/17 of Munipalle village was belongs to Avula Adiseshamma. The said extent Ac.0.10 cents (7+3) was already covered under B schedule of said Regd. Partition deed, dt.21.11.1961, which corresponds to item No.15 to 17 of plaint 'B' schedule properties herein. Thus it is clear the said Ac.0.10 cents (9 cents + ½ cent + undivided 1/ 7th share in joint passage site) which consists 3 items in B schedule of the above said partition deed which was already sold away by the Avula
Adiseshamma in favour of the above said Chintam Sambasiva Rao his brother
Chintam Nageswara Rao and Beesabattina Sambasiva Rao, who inturn sold away to one Metla Sambasiva Rao of Munipalle village as state supra. Taking into advantage of the errors occurred in the entries of the Revenue Records, the plaintiffs got falsely repeated the said item No.15 to 17 of plaint B schedule properties and falsely shown plaint B(a) schedule properties. Thus it is clear the item No.15 to 17 of plaint B schedule properties in an extent of Ac.0.10 cents in all and the properties shown as item No.18 and 19 of plaint B(a) schedule are falsely mentioned in the suit schedule or plaint schedule without support of any 10 authenticate documentary evidence such as any title deed, muchless Regd. Sale deed in the name of said Avula Adiseshamma to substantiate of their case.
20.The suit is bad under law for non-joinders of proper and necessary parties to the suit such as the bonafide purchasers 1) Talasila Lakshmipathi Rao, 2)
Talasila Ranga Rao, 3) Chintam Sambasiva Rao his brother Nageswara Rao and
Beesabattini Sambasiva Rao at now Metla Sambasiva Rao and after his death his legal heirs and the profounder of the last Will/testament of deceased Avula
Adiseshamma by name Talasila @ Oruganti Jhansi Lakshmi, W/o.Oruganti
Venkateswara Rao are proper and necessary parties and as such the suit may be dismissed on its count. Admittedly once a comprehensive partition took place between the Avula Ramaiah, his wife Adiseshamma and the plaintiffs i.e., wife and daughter of deceased Avula Sree Rama Murthy under Regd. Partition deed of deceased Avula Sree Rama Murthy under Regd. Partition deed dt.21.11.1961 bearing document No.2054/1961 of S.R.O. Ponnur by metes and bounds and under good and bad quality with separate possession thereof and as such the question of Re-partition does not arise both on facts or under law.
21.The suit is bad under law in the absence of declaration that the plaint schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendant on that lines. In as much as some part of the plaint 'A' schedule properties are already sold away by the defendant under Regd. Sale deed, dt.11.12.2006 bearing document No.2990/2006 of S.R.O. Ponnur in respect of 119 sq. yards of site together with an old country tiled house therein (item No.9 and 10 of plaint A schedule property) in favour of one Talasila Ranga Rao of Munipalle village and delivered the physical possession of the same on the even date to him and as such the recitals mentioned in the said Regd. Sale deed cannot be ignored.
Similarly when the wife of the late Avula Ramaiah by name Avula Adiseshamma was already sold away some part of her B schedule properties covered under the above said Regd. Partition deed, dt.21.11.1961 bearing doct. No.2054/1961 of
S.R.O. Ponnur such as item No.14 of plaint B schedule property in favour of
Talasila Lakshmipathi Rao under Regd. Sale deed, dt.9-5-1994 bearing doct.
No.707/94 of S.R.O. Ponnur and item No.1 to 17 of plaint B schedule properties in favour of Chintam Sambasiva Rao, his brother Chintam Nageswara Rao and 11
Beesabattini Sambasiva Rao respectively under possessary agreement of sale in the year 1986 and the said Beesabattini Sambasiva Rao who intun sold away the same under Regd. Sale deed, dt.25.12.1992 bearing doct. No.2677/1992 of S.R.O.
Ponnur in favour of one Metla Sambasiva Rao of Munipalle village and delivered the physical possession of the same and as such the recitals of the said Regd.
Sale deeds and possessory Agreements of sale in respect of delivery of physical possession of the said properties and coupled with the physical possession and enjoyment of the Talasila Jhansi lakshmi @ Oruganti Jhansi Lakshmi in respect of item No.13 of plaint B schedule property which was covered under unregistered last Will/Testament dt.10.4.2001 got executed by her maternal grand mother
Adiseshamma are cannot and shall not be ignored and as such the plaintiffs cannot no longer contended that the said properties are in joint and constructive possession of the plaintiff and the defendant. The alleged plea that the plaintiffs are in joint and constructive possession of plaint schedule properties is only a replica with a view to avoid the payment of court fee under Sec.34(1) of APCF and
SV Act 1956 and they paid only a meager amount of Rs.200/- under section 34(2) of APCF and SV Act and as such the plaintiffs are held liable to pay the proper court fee as per the valuation certificate issued by the concerned Sub-Registrar,
Ponnur for their claim. The plaintiffs without paying proper and adequate court fee to their suit claims U/Sec.34(1) of APCF and SV Act 1956 the suit is not at all maintainable according to law.
22.No prior notice was served upon the defendant prior to filing of the suit.
The alleged Regd. Legal notices dt.28-9-2016 and 24-4-2017 respectively are falsely addressed that as the defendant is residing at Munipalle village. But in fact the defendant has been residing at Hyderabad, Attapur in Hyderabad for the last 20 years. Her address proofs such as Aadhar, Voter card are all contained the said Hyderabad address. The plaintiffs are fully aware about the residential address particulars of the defendant. But the plaintiffs deliberately got issued the alleged Regd. Legal notices with Munipalle address to the defendant. Even the court suit notices/ summons are served upon the defendant in Hyderabad only.
There is no cause of action to the suit arose at any point of time. The frame and claim of the suit is bad under law. The claims of the plaintiff are false and on imaginary grounds. The suit was engineered by the plaintiffs under evil advice 12 against the defendant with a view to harass the defendant under false and imaginary stories. The present suit is not at all maintainable both on facts or under law and it is liable to be dismissed. The false claim of the plaintiff are not withstand in a court of law in any angle.
23.The plaintiffs after obtaining their 'C' schedule properties covered under
Regd. Partition deed, dt.21.11.1961 bearing doct.No.2054/1961 of S.R.O. Ponnur and subsequently they sold away the same under respective Regd. Sale deeds to respective 3rd parties of the said village of Munipalle for a valid respective considerations and delivered the physical possession of the same to the said purchasers. Not satisfied with the above said their 'C' schedule properties, at now they set their eyes upon the properties of the defendant and her daughter covered under Regd. Will dt.22.4.1968 bearing doct. No.8/1968 of book No.3 of
S.R.O. Ponnur of the Avula Ramaiah and another Will dt.10.4.2001 of the
Adiseshamma, with a view to grab the plaint schedule properties by hook or crook under false and imaginary grounds that the said Avula Ramaiah and his wife
Adiseshamma were already died intestate. The defendant is alone looked after the day to day needs of her parents at their fag-end-stage. More so, the defendant and her husband took all the responsibilities of said Ramaiah and
Adiseshamma after their death and performed obsequies with their expenses as per the Will and desire of the said Avula Ramaiah. The plaintiff never visited the said couple Ramaiah and Adiseshamma during their life time and after their death. The plaintiffs did not turn up even at the time of last rights of the deceased Ramaiah and Adiseshamma, though they were informed. The contents of the Regd. Partition deed, dt.21.11.1961 and the contents of the Regd. Will, dt.22.4.1968 and the contents of the un-Regd. Will dt.10.4.2001 and other subsequent Regd. Sale deeds properties alienated by the Avula Adiseshamma and the defendant may be read as part and parcel of this written statement pleadings and for due appreciation of her case. There is no merits in the suit. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
24.Based on the above pleadings, the following Issues were settled for the trial of the suit.
1. Whether the suit schedule properties are available for partition?
13
2. Whether the plaint B(a) schedule properties are available for partition?
3. Whether the father of defendant bequeathed the plaint A schedule properties under regd. Will dt. 22.4.1968 in the name of the defendant?
4. Whether the mother of the defendant under regd. Will dt. 10.4.2001 bequeathed item No.13 of the B schedule properties in favour of her grand daughter J.Jhansi Lakshmi?
5. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
6. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of proper parties?
7. Whether the plaintiffs are in joint possession and enjoyment of all the suit schedule properties, if not,
8. Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff is correct?
9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of schedule properties as prayed for?
10. To what relief?
25.On behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws. 1 to 6 were examined and
Exs.B.1 to B.11 were marked.
26.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs made the following submissions :-
Originally the plaint schedule properties belonged to one Avula Ramaiah. He has one son and one daughter viz., Sriramamurthy and the defendant respectively.
One Adiseshamma is his wife. The 1st plaintiff is the wife and the 2nd plaintiff is the daughter of Sri Ramamurthy. The said Sri Ramamurthy died intestate on 13.5.1961 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his only legal heirs. At the time of his death the first plaintiff was pregnant and the 2nd plaintiff was born after his death.
After the death of Sri Ramamurthy, the properties of Avula Ramaiah were partitioned between Avula Ramaiah, his wife Adiseshamma and the plaintiffs under a regd. Partition deed, dt. 2.11.1961, Ex.A.1. In the said partition while the
A schedule mentioned properties therein fell to the share of Ramaiah, B schedule properties fell to the share of Adiseshamma and the C schedule mentioned properties fell to the share of the plaintiffs. After the partition, each of the sharers 14 took possession of their respective properties and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Avula Ramaiah died on 1.4.1975 leaving behind him his wife, Adiseshamma, the plaintiffs and his daughter, the defendant as his legal heirs to succeed to his estate i.e., the A schedule mentioned properties in the partition deed. The plaintiffs have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the said properties along with Adiseshamma and the defendant and they have got a 1/3rd share therein. Subsequently, on 14.2.2006 Adiseshamma died leaving behind the plaintiffs and the defendant as her legal heirs to succeed to her estate, i.e., 1/3rd share in the properties of Avula Seshaiah and ½ share in the properties that fell to her share i.e., B schedule of the partition deed. The plaint
B(a) schedule mentioned properties are the self acquired properties of
Adiseshamma which she acquired with the assistance of the funds provided to her by her parents and after her death they are having ½ share therein along with the defendant. The plaintiffs have sold away the C schedule mentioned properties of the partition deed which fell to their share. Though they have been demanding
Adiseshamma during her life and the defendant for partition of the plaint schedule mentioned properties they went on postponing on some pretext or the other. Even the notices sent to the defendant under Exs.A.3, A.5 and A.7 were returned un-served. The Wills said to have been executed by Avula Ramaiah in favour of the defendant on 22.4.1968 and the Will said to have been executed by
Adiseshamma in favour of the Jhansi Lakshmi on 10.4.2021 are forged and fabricated documents to deprive the plaintiffs of their legitimate share in the plaint schedule properties. The sale deeds executed in favour of third parties by
Adiseshamma are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs. It is clear from the evidence of D.W.1 that she took active part at the time of execution of the Wills said to have been executed by Avula Ramaiah and Adiseshamma. Hence the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and other reliefs as prayed for in the suit.
27.Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant made the following submissions :- The relationship between the parties is admitted. It is also not disputed that Sri Rama Murthy, the only son of Ramaiah predeceased him. After his death, there was a partition between him, his wife and the plaintiffs under a regd. Partition deed Ex.A.1 in which the A schedule mentioned properties therein fell to the share of Ramaiah, B schedule to Adiseshamma and C schedule to the 15 plaintiffs. When once there was a partition of the joint family properties, each of the sharers become the absolute owners of the properties that fell to their share and hence the question of existence of any joint family or ancestral property does not arise. It is not a case where Ramaiah and Adiseshamma died intestate. Both of them died testate. While in a sound and disposing state of mind Ramaiah executed a regd. Will on 22.4.1968, under Ex.B.1 in favour of the defendant since no properties were given to her under the partition deed, Adiseshamma executed an un-regd. Will under Ex.B.2 in favour of her grand daughter Jhansi Lakshmi.
That being the case the question of the plaintiffs becoming entitled to any share in the A and B schedule mentioned properties of the partition deed does not arise.
Even during her life time Adiseshamma sold away item No.14 of the plaint B schedule to one T.Lakshmipathi Rao under the original of Ex.B.6. Under the original of Ex.B.6, D.Sambasiva Rao sold away item Nos 15 to 17 of the plaint B schedule to M.Sambasiva Rao and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant sold away items 9 and 10 of the plaint schedule to one T.Ranga Rao on 11.12.2016 under the original of Ex.B.7 and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. All of them are necessary and proper parties to the suit. The suit cannot be decided in their absence. Hence the suit is bad non joinder of necessary parties and it is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. Further, plaint B(a) schedule property does not belong to Adiseshamma and she never purchased the same with the assistance of her parents and she has nothing to do with the same. Item Nos. 15 to 17 of the plaint B schedule properties in an extent of Ac. 0.10 cents in all and the properties shown as item Nos. 18 and 19 of plaint B(a) schedule are one and the same. In fact, plaint B (a) schedule mentioned properties are neither shown in the partition deed, Ex.A.1 or in the Will dt. 10.4.2001 executed by her in favour of Jhansi Lakshmi. According to him, the suit is also barred by limitation as the plaintiff filed the suit long after the succession has opened and after execution of the Wills. It is his further contention that the plaintiffs can never be said to be in joint or constructive possession of the plaint schedule properties and they ought to have paid court fee under Sec. 34(1) of the AP CF and SV Act instead of paying fixed court fee under Sec. 34(2) of the Act. In support of the above contentions he placed reliance on the decisions in Jaswanth Kour and another v. Rajan 16
Bai and others,1Eda Mary (died per LR) and others v. Ydela Elzebeth
Rani and others,2 and Punyavathi and another v. Pachiammal.3
In Shasidhar and others v. Smt. Ashwini Uma Mathad and another4 it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in a suit filed by a co-sharer, coparcener or co-owner or joint owner, as the case may be, for partition and separate possession of his/her share qua others, it is necessary for the court to examine in the first instance the nature and character of the properties in suit such as who was the original owner of the suit properties, how and by which source he/she acquired such properties, whether it was his/her self-acquired property or ancestral property or joint property or coparcenary property in his/her hand and if so who are/were the coparceners or joint owners with him or her as the case may be, secondly, how the devolution of his/her interest in the property took place consequent upon his/her death on surviving members of the family and in what proportion, whether he/she died intestate or left behind any testamentary succession in favour of any family member or outsider to inherit his/her share in properties and if so its effect, thirdly whether the properties in suit are capable of being partitioned effectively and if so in what manner? It was further held that court should also see whether all properties are included in the suit and all co-sharers, coparceners, co-owners or joint owners as the case may be are made parties to the suit. It was held that these issues being material for proper disposal of the suit partition suit have to be answered by the court on the basis of the family tree, inter-se relations of family members, evidence adduced and the principles of law applicable to the case.
28.Issue Nos. 5 and 6 :- It is one of the contentions of the defendant that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties i.e., J.Jhansi Lakshmi in whose favour Adilakshmamma executed Ex.B.2 Will during her life time on 10.4.2001 and T.Ranga Rao, Ch. Sambasiva Rao and his brother Nageswara Rao,
B.Sambasiva Rao and M.Sambasiva Rao to whom the properties were sold under 1 AIR 2004 AP 511 2 2019(2) ALD 170 : 2019(1) ALT 273 3 A.S.No. 251/2011 dt. 22.2.2022 (Mad HC).
4 AIR 2015 SC 1139 17
Exs.B.5 to B.7. In spite of taking such objection at the earliest point of time i.e., at the time of filing written statement before settlement of issues, the plaintiffs did not take any steps to implead the above said persons as party-defendants in the suit as admittedly they have got interest in some of the items of the plaint schedule properties. Under Order 1, Rule 9 CPC though a suit cannot be defeated by misjoinder of a party, the proviso says that a suit is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of a necessary party. A necessary party is whose who has got a direct interest in the subject matter of the suit and without whose presence a valid decree cannot be passed behind his back. In a suit for partition all the persons interested in the subject matter of the suit are to be brought on record for effective adjudication of the real controversy between the parties to the suit. In the absence of such impleadment of necessary parties, the suit is liable to be dismissed. P.W.1 who is the second defendant in the suit admitted in her evidence that she did not implead the persons to whom the property was sold away by her grand parents or the defendant. She volunteered that Adiseshamma executed a document in favour of Jhansi for an extent of 0.50 cents of land.
Recently in Karumuri Venkata Laxmi Narasimham and others v.
Devatha Nagabhushanam5it was held that in a suit for partition or partnership, there would be an absolute necessity to implead all the interested parties, the necessity or otherwise of such impleadment or the interestedness of such party involved would and should be decided in the suit only in their presence. It was further held that the suit shall be defeated by non joinder of a necessary party.
In Mohana Velu Mudaliar v. Annamalai Mudaliar and another6 it was held that if the defendant takes the objection at a proper time, it is his right to have all the proper persons joined as plaintiffs and if after the objection has been raised, the plaintiff proceeds with the suit without taking steps to add the person or persons whose non-joinder has been objected and the Court finds that the objection is well founded, the suit must be dismissed.
5 2024(4) ALT 77(AP) 6 AIR 1923 Mad 337 18
In K. Bhaskar Rao v. K.A. Rama Rao7 in a suit for partition the defendant in the written statement raised the plea of non-joinder of the two sisters of the parties for which the plaintiff stated in his rejoinder that as they were already married and were given sufficient share in the form of cash and articles, they were not necessary parties. The plaintiff came up with an application to implead the sisters as parties in the first appeal which was rejected holding that the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties being fatal, the same cannot be cured by impleading them in the appeal and upheld the dismissal of the suit on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties by the trial Court.
29.In view of the above legal position, though the suit cannot be dismissed for misjoinder of a party, it is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties. Since the plaintiff failed to implead the parties who have got direct interest over some of the items of the plaint schedule properties, the suit is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. Issue No. 5 is accordingly answered against the plaintiffs.
30.Issue No. 2 :- While it is the case of the plaintiffs in the plaint that the plaint B(a) schedule mentioned properties were acquired by Adiseshamma with the assistance of her parents’ money and hence she is entitled to a share therein also after her death, it is the contention of the defendant that Adiseshamma has nothing to do with plaint B(a) schedule mentioned properties, she was never in possession and enjoyment of the same and they never belonged to her. As per the description given in the plaint, plaint B(a) schedule contains two items, 0.67 cents in D.No. 536/15 and 0.03 cents situate in D.No. 536/17. Quite curiously the boundaries for item NO.2 in plaint B(a) schedule are kept blank. In spite of taking a specific plea that Adiseshamma has nothing to do with plaint B(a) schedule mentioned properties and that she was never in possession and enjoyment of the same, the plaintiffs did not take any steps to prove that the said property belongs to her and that they have also got a share therein. Further, there is no reference to plaint B(a) schedule mentioned properties either in Ex.A.1 partition deed or in
Ex.B.2 Will executed by Adiseshamma in favour of grand-daughter. Hence it must 7 2010(5) ALD 339 19 be held that plaint B(a) schedule mentioned properties are not available for partition.
31.Issue Nos. 1,3,4,7 and 9 :- As all these Issues are interconnected, they are taken up together for consideration.
It is not disputed that originally the plaint schedule mentioned properties from item Nos 1 to 17 belonged to Avula Ramaiah. One Sri Ramamurthy is his son and the defendant is his daughter. One Avula Adiseshamma is his wife. It is also not disputed that Avula Srirama Murthy died intestate on 28.4.1961 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his Class I legal heirs. It is also not disputed that after his death the properties were partitioned between Ramaiah, his wife Adiseshamma and the plaintiffs herein under the original of ExA1 on 22.4.1968 in which while the A schedule mentioned properties fell to his share, B schedule properties fell to the share of Audiseshamma and the C schedule properties fell to the share of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs themselves admitted both in their pleadings and evidence that they sold away the properties that fell to their share. It is also not disputed that Ramaiah died on 1.4.1975. While the plaintiffs contend that he died intestate, the defendant contends that he died testate by executing his last Will and testament on 22.4.1968 in favour of the defendant. According to the plaintiffs, after his death the plaintiffs, Adiseshamma and the defendant are entitled to 1/3rd share therein. It may be noticed at this stage itself that when once the properties were partitioned among co-sharers and they took possession of their respective shares and enjoying the same separately, they become their self acquired or absolute property and the question of it assuming the character of any joint family or ancestral or coparcenary property does not arise. If a Hindu male dies intestate, it devolves on his Class I heirs like his wife, son/daughter, or son or daughter of a predeceased son or daughter. Thus, only the 2nd plaintiff will be a Class I heir entitled to a share in the properties of Ramaiah if he had died intestate. Since he died testate by executing a Will under Ex.B.1, the question of the first plaintiff getting any share therein does not arise.
32.Even though in the written statement it has been specifically stated that
Ramaiah died by executing a regd. Will on 22.4.1968 in favour of the defendant, 20 no rejoinder has been filed disputing the genuineness or otherwise of the Will. On the other hand, she stated in her evidence that she does not know about the defence taken by the defendant in the written statement or about the documents filed by her. She admitted that she did not file any rejoinder to the written statement. She feigns ignorance whether her paternal grandfather executed a regd. Will on 22.4.1968 with regard to the A schedule of the partition deed in favour of the defendant or not and she does not deny it. She denied the suggestion that by virtue of the said Will the defendant has become the absolute owner of the properties mentioned in the said Will.
33.Ex.B.1 is the registered Will executed by Ramaiah in favour of the defendant on 22.4.1968 in respect of the properties got by him in the partition under Ex.A.1 regd. Partition deed. In her chief examination affidavit, D.W.1 has reiterated the very same facts stated by her in the written statement. It is elicited through her that after the death of her brother the partition was reduced into writing. It is also elicited through her that she was not given any property in the said partition. It is also elicited through her that after retirement of her husband she has been living at Hyderabad for the last 25 years and she used to visit Munipalle village on festival occasions and other occasions. It is also elicited through her that she was present at the time of execution of the Will and at that time her parents were living at Munipalli and doing agriculture. Avula Ramaiah died almost 7 years after execution of the Will. According to her, the Will was scribed by one Subba Rao and one M.Vittal Prasada Rao and G.Ramaiah attested the said Will. It is also elicited through her that the said Vittal Prasada Rao also signed as one of the attestors in the partition deed, Ex.A.1. She further stated that at the time of execution of the Will her father was hale and healthy and he was only suffering from stomach pain. It was not even suggested to D.W.1 that the testator was not in a sound and disposing state of mind to execute the Will.
The very fact that it was registered with the concerned Registrar vouch safes for its genuineness. It was suggested to her that the entire Will including the signature of the scribe and attestors appear to have been written by the scribe himself and that no attestors signed on it. It was suggested to her that to knock away the plaint schedule properties Ex.B.1 Will was brought into existence. This 21 court has carefully examined Ex.B.1 Will. A careful perusal of the Will shows that while the signature of the scribe appears to be with one ink the signatures of the attestors appear to be with one ink. Hence the contention of the plaintiffs that the contents, signatures of the scribe and attestors of the Will appear to be with one ink does not appear to be true. Since it is stated that both the attestors and scribe of the Will are no more, D.W.4 who is the son of one of the attestors,
Venkata Ramaiah has been examined to identify the signature of his father on
Ex.B.1 Wil. D.W.3 is the son of the document writer who is examined to identify the handwriting and signature of his father on Ex.B.1 Will. He identified the signature of his father as well as his handwriting and stated that Ex.B.1 Will was scribed by his father. One of the attestors of the Will, Vital Prasada Rao, is his brother and he identified his signature also on Ex.B.1. He denied the suggestion that the contents of the Will and the signatures of the attestors appear to be written by one and the same person.
34.A Will is a solemn document which speaks from the death of the testator. It comes into effect after his death and therefore he will not be available in this word to explain about the disposition made by him in the Will. Therefore, a Will which is a compulsorily attestable document is required to be proved in accordance with Sec. 63(c) of the Succession Act read with Sec. 68 of the
Evidence Act by examining atleast one of the attestors. If the attestors are not available or dead, familiar evidence i.e., persons acquainted with the signatures of the attestors have to be examined. Apart from that the propounder of the Will also is required to remove all the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will.
Then only it can be said that the Will is proved to be genuine. Admittedly, no property was given to the defendant in the partition that took place under Ex.A.1.
Therefore, it is not unnatural for Ramaiah to have executed the Will in favour of the defendant bequeathing the properties got by him in the partition in her favour. She is able to prove the Will by adducing familiar evidence by examining the persons familiar with the handwriting and signatures of both the attestors as well as the scribe. In fact, no suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will were pointed out by the plaintiffs except suggesting that it has been created to knock away the properties of Ramaiah.
22
35.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence brought on record it must be held that the Will dt. 22.4.1968 executed by
Ramaiah in favour of the defendant is true, valid and binding on the plaintiffs.
When once it is found that Ex.B.1 Will is a genuine and valid one, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the properties belonging to A.Ramaiah.
36.Even otherwise, when Ramaiah died in the year 1975 they kept quiet till 2017 for nearly 50 years and filed the suit which is clearly barred by limitation.
37.Coming to Ex.B.2 Will executed by Adiseshamma in favour of DW.2, as already noticed by this court, though a reference has been made by the defendant to Ex.B.2 in the written statement, the plaintiffs did not file any rejoinder denying or disputing the Will. D.W.2 is the propounder of the Will. In her chief examination affidavit she stated about the execution of the Will by
Adiseshamma in her favour. Though it is elicited in the cross examination of D.W.2 that all the schedule mentioned properties are ancestral/joint family properties, it is not so. Because once partition had taken place between the sharers by metes and bounds by a registered document each sharer will become the absolute owner of the property that fell to his share and the property no more retains the character of joint family or ancestral property and there cannot be any dispute about this proposition of law. Admittedly the B schedule mentioned properties of the partition deed fell to the share of Adiseshamma and from the date of partition she has become its absolute owner thereof and she is entitled to deal with the same in any manner she likes. If she had died intestate the position would have been different. It is also elicited through her that she used to visit her grandmother even after the marriage. She further states that she was also present at the time of Ex.B.2. It was suggested to her that Exs.B.1 and B.2 are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs and they are created ones. Neither the sound and disposing mind of the testatrix, Adiseshamma has been questioned nor any suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will have been pointed out while cross examining D.W.2. On the other hand, P.W.1 herself admitted in the cross examination that Adiseshamma executed a document in favour of D.W2 with regard to 0.50 cents of land. In Ex.B.2 the extent of the land is shown as 0.48 cents. Thus, in a way the execution of Ex.B.2 has been admitted by P.W.2. Since 23 the attestors and scribe of Ex.B.2 are no more DWs. 5 and 6 were examined i.e., the sons of one of the attestors and scribe of the Will. Thus, it cannot be said that
Ex.B.2 Will is not a genuine one. It must be held that Ex.B.2 Will is also true, valid and binding on the plaintiffs. In that view of the matter, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any share in the property covered by Ex.B.2.
38.Thus, when it is found that both Ramayya and Adiseshamma willed away the properties got by them in the partition under Ex.A.1 and Adieshamma sold away some of the other items of the properties got by her to third parties under
Exs.B.5 to B.7, none of the plaint schedule properties are available for partition. It cannot also be said that the plaintiffs are in joint or constructive possession of the properties along with the defendant. The plaintiffs have been excluded from joint possession of the properties for more than two decades. Hence the court fee paid by them under Sec. 34(2) is also not correct and they have pay advalorem court fee under Sec. 34(1) on the 3/4th market value of the share claimed by them. In
Jaswant Kour’s case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants it was held that up to the marriages of the plaintiffs therein they were in joint possession of the suit schedule property and after their marriages they were not in joint possession of the suit property and hence they have to pay court fee under Sec. 34(1) of the APCF and SV Act. In the case on hand, there was partition by means of a registered document in the year 1961 under Ex.A.1. The sharers took possession of the properties that fell to their share and the plaintiffs admittedly disposed of the properties that fell to their share. Ramaiah and
Adiseshamma willed away their share of the properties in favour of the defendant and her daughter and Adiseshamma sold away some of the properties to some of the third parties under Exs.B.5 to B.7. That being the position the contention of the plaintiffs that they are in joint and constructive possession of the plaint schedule properties does not arise. Hence they have to pay advalorem court fee under Sec. 34(1) of the APCF and SV Act on the 3/4th market value of the share claimed by them after deducting Rs.200/- paid by them. All these Issues are accordingly answered.
39.Coming to the other decision in Puniyavathi’s case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant, it has no application to the facts of the 24 present case since it is not the case of the defendant that she has perfected her title to the plaint schedule properties by way of ouster and adverse possession, though there is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down therein.
40.Issue No. 10 :- In view of the findings on the above Issues, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed both on merits as well as on the grounds of non joinder of necessary parties and limitation.
IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed with costs. The plaintiffs are directed to pay advalorem court fee on the 3/4th market value of the share claimed by them under Sec. 34(1) of the APCF and SV Act after deducting the fixed court fee of Rs.200/- paid by them. Only on payment of such deficit court fee the office is directed to draft the decree.
Prepared, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 29th day of July, 2024.
Sd/- K.P. Balaji
VI Addl. Dist. Judge (FTC), Bapatla.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined
For Plaintiffs: PW.1 : Kodali Sitaravamma @ Syam Kumari. PW.2 : Kodali Rajesh Babu.
For Defendant: DW.1 : Talasila Rangamma DW.2 : Talasila Jhansi Lakshmi DW.3 : M. Venkateswara Rao DW.4 : G. Lakshminarayana DW.5 : M. Venkateswara Rao DW.6 : K. Tulasidasu
Documents marked
For Plaintiffs: Ex.A1 : Certified copy of Registered partition deed, dt.2-11-1961 executed between A Ramaiah, Adiseshamma and plaintiffs, along with neat typed copy, Ex.A2 : Death certificate of A. Adiseshamma, Ex.A3 : Office copy of lawyer’s notice, dt.28-9-2016, Ex.A4 : Returned postal cover, Ex.A5 : Office copy of lawyer’s notice, dt.24-4-2017, Ex.A6 : Returned postal cover, 25
Ex.A7 : Office copy of lawyer’s notice dt.25-2-2016.
For Defendant: Ex.B1 : Regd. Will, dt.22-4-1968 executed by A. Ramaiah in my favour,
Ex.B2 : Unregistered WILL dt.10.4.2001 executed by A. Adiseshamma in favour of T. Jhansilakshmi in respect of item No.13 of plaint B schedule property,
Ex.B3 : Family members certificate issued by Tahsildar Ponnur 9-12-2013,
Ex.B4 : Death certificate of A. Adiseshamma, dt.17-2-2006,
Ex.B5 : Registration extract of Regd. Sale deed, dt.9-5-1994 executed by A. Adiseshamma in favour of T. Lakshmipathi Rao in respect of item No.14 of plaint B schedule,
Ex.B6 : Registration extract of Regd. Sale deed, dt.25-12-1992 executed by D. Sambasiva Rao in favour of M. Sambasiva Rao in respect of items 15 to 17 of plaint B schedule property,
Ex.B7 : Registration extract of Regd. Sale deed.11.12.2016 executed by me in favour of T. Ranga Rao in respect of items 9 and 10 of plaint A schedule,
Ex.B8 : 1-B Namoona, dt.8-4-2024 for S.Nos.536/15 and 404/4,
Ex.B9 : Bunch of 3 cists receipts for the period from 25-7-2013 to 4-9-2020,
Ex.B10 : Adangal/Pahani copy, dt.24-2-2015 for fasali No.1424 for S.No.401/3,
Ex.B11 : Adangal/Pahani copy, dt.24-2-2015 for fasali No.1424 for S.No.403/4.
Sd/- K.P. Balaji
VI Addl. Dist. Judge (FTC), Bapatla.