Sri K Venkata Mallik Subrahmanya sarma

Fair O.S.No.376/2021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT: GAJWEL

Present:- K.Venkata Mallik Subrahmanya Sarma,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Gajwel

Monday, the 22nd day of August, 2022

O.S.No. 376 of 2021

Between:

1. Silveru Madhan Mohan S/o Silveru Narendhar, Age: 36 yrs, Occ: Business,

2. Silveru Bhargav S/o Silveru Narendhar, Age: 34 yrs, Occ: Business,

Both are R/o H.No.5-1, Nacharam V/o Wargal Mandal of Siddipet District.

…Plaintiffs

And

1. Silveru Narendhar S/o Silveru Narayana Swamy, Age: 58 yrs, Occ: Business,

2. Silveru Bharath Kumar S/o Silveru Narendhar, Age: 32 yrs, Occ: Business,

3. Pudari Geethanjali W/o kumar Goud, Age: 46 yrs, Occ: Household,

D.1 to D.3 are R/o Nacharam V/o Wargal Mandal of Siddipet district.

4. Vanteru Vijay Vardhan Reddy S/o Prathap Reddy, Age: 34 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.2-80, Burugupally V/o Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet district.

5. Nangunuri Vijay Kumar S/o Devaiah, Age: 35 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o Bharath Nagar, Gajwel Town & Mandal of Siddipet District.

... Defendant no.1 to 5

CLAIM: SUIT FOR PARTITION & SEPARATE POSSESSION

Plaint Filed U/ Order VII Rule 1 R/W Sec.26 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Date of presentation of plaint: 22-09-2021

Date of registration of plaint: 22-09-2021

1 of 10

Fair O.S.No.376/2021

This suit came before me on 29-07-2022 for final hearing in the presence of

Sri.R.Satyanarayana, counsel for Plaintiffs and the defendants were set exparty and after having perused the evidence adduced, exhibits marked and material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

::J U D G M E N T::

1.The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking to enforce partition and place them in separate possesion of 1/4th share over land in Sy.No.341/2 extent Ac.00-16 guntas, situated at Nacharam V/o Wargal Mandal of Siddipet district and bounded on:

Boundary Description of boundary

EastLand of Sy.No.318 belongs to Sri Laxmi Narsimha Swamy Devasthanam

WestLand of Sy.No.341, 342 and 343

NorthLand of P.Geethanjali

SouthRoad leads to Toopran to Gajwel

Hereinafter referred as “Suit Land”.

2.Case of the Plaintiff: (i) That the Defendant no.1 is the son of one Silveru

Narayana Swamy. The plaintiffs and the defendant no.2 are sons of defendant no.1 and are joint owners of the suit land. Originally the grandfather of the plaintiff purchased 30-guntas of land in Sy.No.341 vide registered sale deed no.2143/1986 and during his life time has executed a gift deed to his daughter for land to an extent of 14-guntas in Sy.No.341, out of his purchased 30-guntas of land vide doct.no.941 of 1989. The remaining land of 16-guntas is the suit land and the plaintiffs and the

Defendant no.1 & 2 are in peaceful possession over the same.

2 of 10

Fair O.S.No.376/2021

(ii)That the plaintiffs and the defendants no.1 & 2 have equal share in the suit land but the defendant no.1 managed the revenue officials and got updated his name alone in the revenue records. That the Defendant no.1 addicted to bad vices has created false and fabricated document vide doct no.6129 of 2015 in favour of defendant no.3 without having absolute right over the suit land and inturn the defendant no.3 has sold the two guntas of land in favour of defendant no.5 through registered sale deed no 2739/2016. That the defendant no.2 has further sold the remaining 14 guntas of the suit land to defendant no.4. The defendant no.5 has also sold the two guntas he pruchased from defendant no.3 to defendant no.4 through registered document no.2504/2016 and none of these documents are binding on the plaintiffs and the defendant no.3 to 5 does not derive any right from the registered documents.

(iii)That on 24-06-2021 the plaintiffs have demanded defendant no.1 & 2 to effect the partition but they were made to wait and again on 10-07-2021 the plaintiffs orally demanded the defendant no.1 & 2 for partition but they are avoding to do the same and haviong no other alternative the plaintiffs have approached this court by way of filing the present suit and prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.

3.Case of the Defendants: The suit summons were served on Defendant no.1 to 5, the D.3 to D.5 have not appeared before this court inspite of receiving the summons and were set exparty. The D.1 & D.2 have appeared before this court and requested time to file written statement and even after extending the time have not engaged any counsel and have remained absent on the subsequent dates of hearing and were set exparty.

3 of 10

Fair O.S.No.376/2021

4.Now let us see whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of partition against defendants or not?

5.To substantiate the case, the Plaintiff no.1 got examined as P.W.1 and Exhibits

A.1 to A.6 were marked and no independent witnesses were examined.

Arguments:

6.a) For the Plaintiff: Heard.

b)For the Defendant: Nil.

Answer to the Point:-

7.Before discussing the evidence in the suit, this court feels it relevant to quote from the judgment, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on proof of facts in exparte suits, in

Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs Anil Panjwani – (2003) 7 SCC 350 - “...Even if the suit proceeds exparte and in the absence of the written statement, unless the applicability of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC is attracted and the court acts thereunder, the necessity of proof by the plaintiff of his case to the satisfaction of the court cannot be dispensed with.”

8.From the above it is clear that the plaintiffs have to still prove their case on the facts as stated in the plaint though the burden is not so heavy and now let us evaluate the evidence at hand.

9.Now, as seen from the plaint averments and also the chief examination afidavit, it is admitted by the plaintiff that their grandfather Narayana Swamy was the owner and possessor of the suit land and the same is his self acquired property which is also evident fromt the Ex.A.1. It was also stated that part of the land 4 of 10

Fair O.S.No.376/2021 purchased through Ex.A.1 i,e to an extent of 14-guntas was gifted to sister of defendant no.1 and after this there is no mention how the property devolved on

Defendant no.1 but the plaintiffs have simply stated that the suit land is in joint possession of the plaintiffs and the defendant no.1 & 2.

10.It is settled law that merely being in a joint family does not make the properties joint and further in the entire plaint averments there is no mention as which law governs the parties in the matter of partition and this court cannot be expected to make guess work of the religion of the parties basing on the names or on other particulars and come to a conclusion as to which law governs them in the matters of partition.

11.The importance of proper and complete pleadings for coming to a just decision, was time and again emphasised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and to quote, in Syed Dastagir Vs T.R.Gopalakrishna Setty – (1999) 6 SCC 337 – wherein the hon’ble supreme court observed as “In construing a plea in any pleading,

Courts must keep in mind that a plea is not an expression of art and science but an expression through words to place fact and law of ones case for a relief. Such an expression may be pointed, precise, some times vague but still could be gathered what he wants to convey through only by reading the whole pleading, depends on the person drafting a plea. In India most of the pleas are drafted by counsels hence aforesaid difference of pleas which inevitably differ from one to other. Thus, to gather true spirit behind a plea it should be read as a whole. This does not distract one from performing his obligations as required under a statute. But to test, whether he has performed his obligations one has to see the pith and substance of a plea. Where a 5 of 10

Fair O.S.No.376/2021 statute requires any fact to be pleaded then that has to be pleaded may be in any form.”

12.The above observation makes it clear that the substance of the pleading can be gathered by reading the whole plaint but the same would not give any benefit to anyone who is supposed to do his duty to put forward his case clearly. Even in the present suit even on entire reading of the plaint, this court could not gather what law governs the parties in the matters of partition and under what law the plaintiffs are pleading joint ownership along with Defendant no.1

13.The pleading in the plaint where it was stated that “without affecting the partition among other members of the joint family the property was sold”, has referred to the joint family and from this assuming that the parties are governed by the hindu law of succession, The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Hereinafter HSA), lays down the rules of succession when a male hindu dies intestate, the relevant provision is extracted hereunder:

8. General rules of succession in the case of males.―The property of a male

Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter:―

(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the

Schedule;

(b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule; 6 of 10

Fair O.S.No.376/2021

(c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and

(d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased.

14.Now how the property would be devolved in the class-I heirs is mentioned in

Section 9 of the act which states:

9. Order of succession among heirs in the Schedule― Among the heirs specified in the Schedule, those in class I shall take simultaneously and to the exclusion of all other heirs; those in the first entry in class II shall be preferred to those in the second entry; those in the second entry shall be preferred to those in the third entry; and so on in succession.

15.From the above provisions it is clear that when there are class-I heirs as mentioned, then the property would devolve on them and in this case the Defendant no.1 is class-I heirs and he is still alive.

16.Admittedly in the case at hand the father of the plaintiffs is alive and further it is no where stated that the suit land is a coparcenary property as no such pleading was made in the plaint. Even otherwise for the petitioners to claim partition by survivorship it has to be shown that there existed a coparcenary and that the property is a coparcenary property held by the propositus and has passed onto the plaintiffs being coparceners, as was held in Vineeta Sharma Vs Rakesh Sharma & Ors – (2020) 9 SCC 1 – “Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body. It consists of propositus and three lineal descendants. Before 2005, it included only those persons like sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons who are the holders of joint property.

7 of 10

Fair O.S.No.376/2021

For example, in case A is holding the property, B is his son, C is his grandson,

D is great-grandson, and E is a great-great-grandson. The coparcenary will be formed up to D, i.e., great- grandsons, and only on the death of A, holder of the property, the right of E would ripen in coparcenary as coparcenary is confined to three lineal descendants. Since grandsons and great-grandsons become coparceners by birth, they acquired an interest in the property.

Coparcenary property is the one which is inherited by a Hindu from his father, grandfather, or great grandfather. Property inherited from others is held in his rights and cannot be treated as forming part of the coparcenary. The property in coparcenary is held as joint owners.”

17.In Sadhineni Rajani & Anr Vs Sadhineni Hymavathi & Ors – (2012) 2 ALD 777 – The hon’ble high court in categorical terms held that “Section 8 operates in cases where a Hindu male, not being a member of coparcenary but holding property in his own right, dies. In such an event, the devolution would be through succession in favour of this class-I heirs, and in their absence to class-II heirs, and so on.”

18.Further in The Purasawakum Permanent Fund Vs R Kalaiselvi – 2015 (3)

LW 554 – Hon’ble high court of Madras held that, Grand fathers own property devolved on father as Legal Heir and not as coparcenor and in such case, the daughter or son cannot claim partition during the lifetime of father.

19.In the entire plaint averments there is no mention of nature of property and how the plaitniffs are claiming their rights and as observed even if the parties are governed by the Mitakshara Law of succession, even then when the grand father held the property as his separate property and after his death his class I heirs would 8 of 10

Fair O.S.No.376/2021 get the property and the grand sons are not shown as class I legal heir, unless their father is predeceased, which is not the case at hand. Further in the plaint at paragraph 7, it was stated that the defendant no.2 has sold the property to Defendant no.4 and when it came to chief affidavit, it was mentioned as the Defendant no.3 has sold the entire remaining property of 14-guntas to defendant no.4, though the registered document filed supports the claim in the chief examination affidavit but the plaintiff should have atleast exercised caution to explain the mistakes in the plaint which was not done.

20.Hnece In view of the foregoing discussion, this court holds that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of partition of the suit land and the point is answered accordingly.

21.In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed. No Costs. Pending IA’s closed.

Tyepd to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 22nd day of August, 2022.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

P.W.1: Silveru Madhan MohanNil

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1CC of registered sale deed No.2143/1986

Ex.A2CC of Registered gift settlement deed No.941/1989 9 of 10

Fair O.S.No.376/2021

Ex.A3CC of registered sale deed No.6129/2015

Ex.A4CC of registered sale deed No.2739/2016

Ex.A5CC of registered sale deed No.2504/2016

Ex.A6CC of registered sale deed No.7125/2016

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL 10 of 10

Fair OS 325/2021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT: GAJWEL

Present:- K. Venkata Mallik Subrahmanya Sarma,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Gajwel.

Wednesday, the 17th day of August, 2022.

O.S.No.325 of 2021

Between:

1. Pasula Andalu W/o Late Pochaiah, Age: 56 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

2. Pasula Gopal S/o Late Pochaiah, Age: 40 Yrs, Occ: Driver,

3. Pasula Laxman S/o Late Pochaiah, Age: 36 Yrs, Occ: Driver,

4. Pasula Ramesh S/o Late Pochaiah, Age: 32 Yrs, Occ: Business,

All are R/o Vergal Village & Mandal of Siddipet District.

…Plaintiffs

And

1. Kaspa Srinivas S/o Shankar, Age: 48 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Vergal V & M of Siddipet district.

2. Dakannagari Karuna W/o Devender Reddy, Age: 42 yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.1-10-51, Temple Alwal, Secunderabad.

…Defendant no.1 & 2

CLAIM: SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE, RECOVERY OF POSSESSION

AND TO DECLARE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.1211/2004 & 4354/2004 AS

NULL & VOID

Plaint Filed U/Order VII rule 1 r/w Sec.26 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Date of presentation of plaint: 13-08-2021

Date of registration of plaint: 13-08-2021

This suit came before me for final hearing on 21-07-2022 in the presence of Sri.M.Hari Shankar counsel for Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 & 2 were set exparte, and after having perused the evidence adduced, exhibits marked and material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

1 of 8

Fair OS 325/2021

::J U D G M E N T::

1.The present suit is filed by the Plaintiffs praying the following reliefs :

(i) To declare the plaintiffs as owner of land to an extent of Ac.01-14 guntas in

Sy.No.1331/EE, situated at Vargal V & M of Siddipet district and bounded on:

Boundary Description of boundary

EastAgriculture Land of Pitla Narsamma

WestAgriculture Land of Karuna

NorthAgriculture Land of Byagari Narsaiah

SouthAgriculture Land of Soppari Narsamma (Hereinafter “Suit Land”)

(ii)To declare the registered sale deed no.1211/2004 & 4354/2004 as null & void.

(iii)To direct the Tahsildar, Vargal to rectify the entries in favour of plaintiffs and issue relevant documents.

(iv)To direct the defendant no.2 to deliver the vacant possession of suit land to the plaintiffs and in the event of non delivery by defendant no.2 to direct the court bailiff to deliver the possession.

2.Case of the Plaintiffs: (i) That originally one Pasula Ramaiah S/o Agaiah was the owner and possessor of the suit land and he died 38 years ago prior to the filing of the present suit, leaving behind his only son Pochaiah. The Plaintiff no.1 is the wife of Pochaiah and daughter in law of Ramaiah and Plaintiff no.2 to 4 are grandsons of Ramaiah and sons of Pochaiah. The said Ramaiah during his life time has not alienated the suit land and after the death of Ramaiah, his son Pochaiah has 2 of 8

Fair OS 325/2021 succeeded to the said property but due to lack of knowledge about revenue laws and being only son he has not effected his name in revenue records for suit land.

(ii)The said Pochaiah also died 30 years prior to the filing of the suit and the plaintiff no.1 to 4 have succeeded to the suit land being class-I heirs, but the plaintiff no.1 being illiterate and Plaintiff no.2 to 4 being minors have not updated their names in the revenue records. That the defendants are no way concerned with the suit lands and the defendant no.1 has created registered sale deed no.1211/2004 through Mushti Ramavva, and that the said Mushti Ramavva is not the owner or possessor of the suit land and the said Mushti Ramavva died and hence was not made a party. That the defendant no.1 along with one Kadupalli Chitta Reddy executed a sale deed no. 4354/2004 in the name of defendant no.2 for the suit land and the land in Sy.No.1331/AA extent Ac.01-15 guntas and the said land is sold by

Kadupalli Chitta Reddy and since the said Chitta Reddy died, hence he is not made party.

(iii)That due to lack of water sources the suit land was kept fallow and the plaintiffs migrated to Hyderabad in search of livelihood and taking advantage of the same the defendant no.1 got created false documents. That after the onset of Covid- 19 the plaintiff no.2 to 4 have lost their income source as such they came back to the village and on 20-07-2021 went to the suit land to cultivate the same but the defendant no.2 objected and stated that he has purchased the suit land. The plaintiffs then got obtained the certified copies and came to know that the defendant no.1 has played fraud on them and hence the plaintiff approached this court by filing the suit and prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.

3 of 8

Fair OS 325/2021

3.Case of the Defendant No.1 & 2: (i) The Defendant no.1 has engaged

Sri.A.Hari Krishna as his counsel and since the written statement was not filed, even after giving sufficient time, the defendant no.1 was set exparty. The substituted service was carried for defendant no.2 and the same was set sufficient and since the defendant no.2 did not appear, she was set exparty.

4.Now the points for determination are:

(1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs can be declared as owners of the Suit Land and are entitled for recovery of possession of the same and further whether the registered documents no.1211/2004 and 4354/2004 can be declared as null & void and whether the plaintiffs are entitled for rectification of entries in revenue records and for mesne profits or not?

(3) To what relief?

5.Plaintiff No.4 was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to A.21 are marked and have not examined any independent witness.

Arguments

6. (i) For the Plaintiff: Heard

(ii)For the Defendants: Nil

Answer to Issue no.1 to 3:

7.All the reliefs sought by the plaintiff are discussed together for the sake of convenience and brevity and to avoid repetition while discussing the evidence on record.

4 of 8

Fair OS 325/2021

8.It is settled law that in a suit for declaration of title, the responsibility of proving the title would be on plaintiff, irrespective of weakness in the case of the defendants.

With this basic premise in mind let us now proceed to evaluate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff.

9.It is the duty of the courts to deal with the aspect of limitation irrespective of there being any plea of limitation by the other party or not and irrespective the suit being decided on contest or on exparty, and hence this court is duty bound to decide the aspect of limitation in the present suit as well.

10.The Plaintiff no.4 examined as P.W.1 has in his chief narrated the contents of the plaint. On perusal of the plaint and the chief affidavit, the plaintiff has stated that he came to know about the documents and entries in the pahanies only on 31-07- 2021, but nowhere it is stated as when the plaintiff has lost possession over the Suit

Land.

11.Evidently the suit if filed for declaration and for recovery of possession of the

Suit Land and when the recovery of possession is sought the period of limitation has to be computed under article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which states the limitation to be 12 years from the date when the defendant lost possession over the

Suit Land. The chief filed simply stated that they came to know of the possession of the defendant no.2 in july’2021, but have nowhere stated about the possession of defendant no.1 and the vendor of the defendant no.1. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that they have never once visited the village after leaving the same, but has only stated that after the pandamic has hit, they moved back to the village and then decided to cultivate the land, and in the interim they never once visited the suit land 5 of 8

Fair OS 325/2021 is not believable. Hence the absence of the specific pleading as to when exactly the plaintiff lost the possession is to be read against the plaintiff, hence this court is of the opinion that the suit is barred by limitation.

12.It was further argued that the name of the grandfather of the plaintiff was shown in the revenue records. On perusal of the exhibits filed by the plaintiffs, the name of Pasula Ramaiah is shown as pattedar and possessor for land to an extent of Ac.01-14 guntas in Ex.A.2 to A.12 for suit survey number and thereafter the name of Mushti Gandaiah was shown for the said land from Ex.A.13 to Ex.A.15 and thereafter the name of defendant no.2 was shown for the suit land, and the plaintiffs though have obtained memo from Tahsildar, Wargal, wherein it was stated that the file proceedings vide B/279/2004 are not available and hence cannot be issued and contended that this clearly shows that there are no such proceedings in favour of

D.1, but has completely failed to explain the revenue entries in the name of

Gandaiah in the first place and have not filed any document to show that the

Gandaiah was not the owner.

13.Further it was held by Hon’ble SC in - Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Awadh Van

Prabhag Vs Arun Kumar Bhardwaj (Dead) Thr. LRs. and Others – 2021 SCC Online

SC 868 - that revenue record is not a document of title and mere mention of the

name in revenue record does not confer any title or possession.

14.Further, In T.K.Mohammed Abubucker (Dead) through L.Rs and others V/s.

P.S.M.Ahamed Abdul Khader and Others – (2009) 14 SCC 224 TheHon'ble

Supreme Court made observation as to how title to the immovable property has to be established, since the said observation is aptly applicable to the case on hand. I 6 of 8

Fair OS 325/2021 have extracted the same - “To establish the title, it was necessary to trace it to a point beyond a minimum of twelve years before the suit. This became all the more necessary as the plaintiff did not have possession, nor were any revenue entries available to support the ownership or possession of the plaintiff and his vendors for the period of twelve years and more, prior to the suit.”

15.Even in the present suit the plaintiff has not filed documents for 12 continuous years prior to the filing of the suit showing his name or his fathers name and the documents filed are only pahanis and hence the same does not have any value.

16.The plaintiff has no where stated that even after they moved to Hyderabad, they were in possession of the suit land, but simply have stated that after coming back to village when they went to the suit land he came to know about the documents, which version is not at all believable. Further the plaintiff no.2 to 3 were stated to be minors when they left the village and the age of the plaintiffs in the plaint now are shown as 40, 36 and 32 years respectively and the last plaintiff himself attained majority some 14 years prior to the filing of the suit and since then they have never known about the possession of defendants and others is not at all believable.

17.In view of the foregoing discussion this court holds that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case and the points are answered accordingly.

18.Result – In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17th day of August, 2022.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL 7 of 8

Fair OS 325/2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF S DEFENDANTS

PW.1: Pasula Ramesh-Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF S

Ex.A1Valuation certificate of agricultural land

Ex.A2CC of pahani for the year 1960-61

Ex.A3CC of pahani for the year 1966-67

Ex.A4CC of pahani for the year 1970-71

Ex.A5CC of pahani for the year 1971-72

Ex.A6CC of pahani for the year 1975-76

Ex.A7CC of pahani for the year 1984-85

Ex.A8CC of pahani for the year 1986-87

Ex.A9CC of pahani for the year 1987-88

Ex.A10CC of pahani for the year 1988-89

Ex.A11CC of ROR for the year 1989-90

Ex.A12CC of pahani for the year 1990-91

Ex.A13CC of pahani for the year 1993-94

Ex.A14CC of pahani for the year 1996-97

Ex.A15CC of pahani for the year 2000-01

Ex.A16CC of pahani for the year 2004-05

Ex.A17CC of pahani for the year 2010-11

Ex.A18CC of pahani for the year 2017-18

Ex.A19CC of registered sale deed No. 1211/2004

Ex.A20CC of registered sale deed No. 4354/2004

Ex.A21Memo issued by Tahsildar Office, Wargal mandal

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL 8 of 8

Fair O.S.No.67/2021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT: GAJWEL

Present:- K.Venkata Mallik Subrahmanya Sarma,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Gajwel

Tuesday, the 23rd day of August, 2022

O.S.No.67 of 2021

Between:

1.Pabba Sabitha W/o: Balakrishna, Age: 39 yrs, Occ: Household, R/o: H.No.5- 64 /1, Anand Nagar Colony, Lalgadi Malakpet, Shameerpet mandal.

2.Uduthala Jyothi W/o: Krishna, Age: 37 yrs, Occ: Household, R/o: Keshavaram village, Shameerpet mandal.

3.Chekkilla Padma W/o: Mahesh Kumar, Age: 35 yrs, Occ: Household, R/o: New Mirjalguda, Malkajgiri. …Plaintiffs

And

1. Vangala Sathaiah Goud S/o: Durga Goud, Age: 90 years, Occ: Nil,

2.Vangala Narasimha Goud S/o: Sathaiah Goud, Age: 70 years, Occ: Nil,

3.Vangala Kanakaiah Goud S/o: Narasimha Goud, Age: 33 years, Occ: Pvt.Emp,

4.Vangala Ramesh Goud S/o: Narasimha Goud, Age: 31 years, Occ: Pvt. Emp,

5.Vangala Praveena W/o: Kanakaiah Goud, Age: 30 years, Occ: Household,

6.Vangala Sravanthi W/o: Ramesh Goud, Age: 28 years, Occ: Household,

All are R/o: Tuniki Bollaram village, Mulugu mandal, Siddipet District.

... Defendant No.1 to 6

CLAIM: SUIT FOR PARTITION & SEPARATE POSSESSION

Plaint Filed U/ Order VII Rule 1 R/W Sec.26 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Date of presentation of plaint: 16.02.2021

Date of registration of plaint: 16.02.2021

This suit came before me on 26-08-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K. Srinivas, counsel for Plaintiff and the defendants were set exparty and after having perused the evidence adduced, exhibits marked and material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

::J U D G M E N T::

1.The plaintiff filed by the suit against the defendants No.1 to 6 seeking for partition and separate possession into seven equal shares and allot 3/7th share each 1 of 6

Fair O.S.No.67/2021 to the plaintiff No.1 to 3 in respect of (i) Agricultural Land in Sy.No.230/A, to extent

Ac.1-27 guntas, and (ii) Sy.No.229/A, to an extent Ac.0-03 gts, situated at Tuniki

Bollaram village, Mulugu mandal, Siddipet District and bounded on:

Boundary Description of boundary

EastLand of Nagula Sanjeeva Goud

WestLand of Elimeti Sathi Reddy

NorthLand of Ramaswamy

SouthRoad

(iii) Land in Sy.No.321/AA, to an extent of Ac.1-13 gts, situated at Tuniki Bollaram village, Mulugu mandal, Siddipet District and bounded on:

Boundary Description of boundary

EastLand of Yadagiri

WestLand of Kothapati Shiva Reddy

NorthLand of Mangela Elesh

SouthPNR Colony

Hereinafter referred as “Suit Land A” (iv) Residential House bearing Grampanchayath

No. 1-19, admeasuring 300 sq.yds, situated at Tuniki Bollaram village, Mulugu mandal, Siddipet District and bounded on:

Boundary Description of boundary

EastHouse of Durgaiah

WestOpen place of others

NorthLand of Mangela Elesh

SouthHouse of Kummari Padma

Hereinafter referred as “Suit Land B”.

2 of 6

Fair O.S.No.67/2021

2.Case of the Plaintiff: That the plaintiff No.1 to 3 and defendants No.3 & 4 are the children of defendant No.2 and grandchildren of defendant No.1 and defendant

No.5 & 6 are wives of defendant No.3 & 4 respectively and are constitute Undivided

Hindu Joint Family, Governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. That the plaintiffs and the defendants are joint owners and possessors of suit land A to C. That originally the suit land was acquired by the defendant No.1 from his father and the suit schedule properties are recorded in the name of defendant No.1 in revenue records. That the defendant No.3 & 4 with malafied intention and to cause loss to the share of the plaintiffs has influenced defendant No.1 and got created registered sale deeds in favour of defendants No.3 to 6 and got mutated their names in revenue records. That the plaintiffs anticipating the attitude to the defendants No.3 to 6 have demanded the defendant No.1 to 4 for partition but the defendants have refused for the same and hence having no other alternative the plaintiffs have approached this court and prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.

3.Case of the Defendants: The defendants No.1 to 6 have appointed Sri Vijaya

Bhaskar, advocate as their counsel but they failed to file the written statement inspite of advancing sufficient time and hence the defendants No.1 to 6 were set exparte.

4.Now let us see whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition against defendants or not?

5.To substantiate the case, the Plaintiff No.1 to 3 got examined as P.W.1 to 3 and Exhibits A.1 to A.7 were marked and no independent witnesses were examined.

Arguments:

6.a) For the Plaintiffs: Heard.

3 of 6

Fair O.S.No.67/2021

b)For the Defendants: Nil.

Answer to the Point:-

7.Before discussing the evidence in the suit, this court feels it relevant to quote from the judgment, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on proof of facts in exparte suits, in

Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs Anil Panjwani – (2003) 7 SCC 350 - “...Even if the suit proceeds exparte and in the absence of the written statement, unless the applicability of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC is attracted and the court acts thereunder, the necessity of proof by the plaintiff of his case to the satisfaction of the court cannot be dispensed with.”

8.From the above it is clear that the plaintiffs have to still prove their case on the facts as stated in the plaint though the burden is not so heavy and now let us evaluate the evidence at hand.

9.Now, as seen from the plaint averments and also the chief examination afidavit, of the plaintiff No.1 to 3 as PW1 to 3, it is admitted that their grandfather ie,.

Defendant No.1, has acquired the suit property from his father. No where in the plaint it is stated that the suit properties are coparcenary properties but all through the plaint and also in the chief examination affidavit it was stated that the properties are joint family properties and that the plaintiffs are joint owners along with the defendants.

10.It is settled law that merely being in a joint family does not make the properties joint and the plaintiff has to prove that the properties are joint family properties. The plaintiff has filed pahanies marked as Ex.A1 to A7 and contended that in Ex.A1 to A4 the properties are clearly shown in the name of defendant No.1. Be that as it may, it 4 of 6

Fair O.S.No.67/2021 is settled law that the revenue entries in the pahanies can only to relied for the purpose of ascertaining who is paying the revenue and the entries does not prove title or possession and definitely the revenue entries cannot be relied upon to say that the property is a joint family property. Even otherwise the Ex.A1 to A4 shown that the property is in the name of defendant No.1 and from the admission the defendant No.1 has acquired the same from his father. Now when it is not even clear from the plaint when the plaintiff say that the defendant No.1 has acquired the suit property from his father, they mean it by way of gift, purchase or by way of succession. Even considering for a moment that the acquisition by defendant No.1 is one of two modes i.e, by succession or byway of purchase, gift etc, then the defendant No.1 would become absolute owner of the property and he can dispose the property to anyone as per his free will.

11.The plaintiffs though contended that the defendants No.3 to 6 have influenced and got the sale deed executed in their favour but have not explained what influence was exerted on the defendant No.1 and the point of defendant No.2 to 6 influencing the defendant No.1 is not proved and in circumstances where the plaintiffs have failed to prove the properties are joint family properties, this court feels that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief as prayed for and as observed above it is not the case of the plaintiffs that the property is copercenary property as the same was never pleaded and further the influencing the defendant No.1 is not proved beyond doubt.

5 of 6

Fair O.S.No.67/2021

12.In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed. No Costs. Pending IA’s closed.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade II, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 23rd day of August, 2022.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF S DEFENDANT S

P.W.1: Pabba SabithaNil

P.W.2: Uduthala Jyothi

P.W.3: Chekkila Padma

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1CC of pahani for the year 2002-03

Ex.A2CC of pahani for the year 2005-06

Ex.A3CC of pahani for the year 2007-08

Ex.A4Mee seva pahani for fasli 2020 in Sy.No.321AA/2

Ex.A5Mee seva pahani for fasli 2020 in Sy.No.321AA/1

Ex.A6Mee seva pahani for fasli 2020 in Sy.No.230AA/2

Ex.A7Mee seva pahani for fasli 2020 in Sy.No.230AA/1

DEFENDANTS

-Nil-

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL 6 of 6

Fair O.S.No.158/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT: GAJWEL

Present:- K.Venkata Mallik Subrahmanya Sarma,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Gajwel

Tuesday, the 23rd day of August, 2022

O.S.No.158 of 2020

Between:

Jogannagari Ramulamma W/o: Late Narsa Reddy, Age: 64 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: Plot No.99, Vivekananda Nagar, Boduppal, Medipally mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

…Plaintiff

And

1. Thokala Sudhakar Reddy S/o: Hanumanth Reddy, Age: 54 yrs, Occ: Agricul,

2.Thokala Narsa Reddy S/o: Hanumanth Reddy, Age: 60 yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

3.Bathula Renuka W/o: Pochaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture,

4.Bathula Pochaiah S/o: Sattaiah, Age: 44 years, Occ: Agriculture,

5.Bathula Sadhulu S/o: Sattaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture,

6.Bathula Laxmi W/o: Sattaiah, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture,

All are R/o: Bangla Venkatapuram, Gajwel mandal, Siddipet District.

... Defendant No.1 to 6

CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION

Plaint Filed U/ Order VII Rule 1 & 2 R/W Sec.26 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Date of presentation of plaint: 10.08.2020

Date of registration of plaint: 11.08.200

This suit came before me on 29-07-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.D. Madhava Rao, counsel for Plaintiff and the defendants were set exparty and after having perused the evidence adduced, exhibits marked and material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

::J U D G M E N T::

1.The present suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant No.1 to 6 (Hereinafter Defendants), praying for grant of Perpetual Injunction, restraining the 1 of 5

Fair O.S.No.158/2020

Defendants and anyone claiming through them from interfering into the possession of the plaintiff over agriculture land in Sy.No.62/A/3, to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts, situated at Bangla Venkatapur village, Gajwel mandal, Siddipet District and bounded on:

Boundary Description of boundary

EastPandi Bakkaiah Land

WestThokala Sudhakar Reddy

NorthKonteboina Narsaiah Land

SouthSunke Kistaiah Land

Hereinafter referred as “Suit Land”.

2.Case of the Plaintiff: (i) That the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit land having purchased the same from defendant No.2, vide document No. 3699/1985 dt.

25.11.1985 and was put in possession over the suit land and has been enjoying the same since then. That originally the total extent of land in Sy.No.62 is Ac.9-05 gts out of which the plaintiff has got Ac.2-00 gts, of land which is the suit land and defendnat

No.1, 3, 5 & 6 also has lands in same survey numbers with different boundaries.

That after the death of husband of the plaintiff, the plaintiff shifted to Hyderabad and have been regulararly visiting the suit land and found that the defendants are making efforts to cultivate the land of the plaintiff by dispossessing her and since then the plaintiff through her son has been protecting her possession. That the sale deeds of defendant No.1, & 3 to 6 clearly show their boundaries and the sale deed of plaintiffs also shows the boundaries of the suit land inspite of that the defendants are trying to interfere into the possession of the plaintiff without any right and on 02.07.2020 the defendant No.1 & 3 to 6 tried to interfere into the suit land which act was resisted and 2 of 5

Fair O.S.No.158/2020 the plaintiffs did not get any assistance from the police and hence have approached this court byway of filing the present suit and prayed to decree the suit.

3.Case of the Defendant No.1 to 6: The summons of Defendant No.1 to 6 were refused was set sufficient and defendants No.1 to 6 were set exparte.

4.Now let us see whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Perpetual

Injunction against defendants or not?

5.To substantiate the case, the Plaintiff got examined as P.W.1 and Exhibits A.1 to A.14 were marked and the son of plaintiff was examined as PW2.

Arguments:

6.a) For the Plaintiff: Heard.

b)For the Defendants: Nil.

Answer to the Point:-

7.On perusal of the document filed by the plaintiff the Ex.A1 is the registered sale deed through which she purchased the suit land and Ex.A8 to A12 are the pahanies in the name of the plaintiff and Ex.A2 to A7 are the pahanies of vendor of the plaintiff and all these documents put together shows the possession of the plaintiff and this fact is not denied by the defendant as they remained exparte.

8.In a suit for injunction the prime consideration is the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land within the said boundaries and the same are proved by way of documents and also by way of oral evidence of PW1 & 2 and this court satisfied with the evidence brought on record showing the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land.

3 of 5

Fair O.S.No.158/2020

9.When the burden shifted on to the defendants to disprove the case of the plaintiff, they remained exparte and in circumstances, this court feels that the suit of the plaintiff can be decreed.

10.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed without costs against the defendant No.1 to 6. That the defendants No.1 to 6, their legal heirs, followers and any one claiming through them are hereby permanently injuncted from interfering into the possession of plaintiff over the Suit Land. Pending IA’s are closed.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 23rd day of August, 2022.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT S

P.W.1: Jogannagari RamulammaNil

P.W.2 : J. Madhav Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1Original sale deed No.2699/1985

Ex.A2CC of pahani for the year 1954-55

Ex.A3CC of pahani for the year 1959-60

Ex.A4CC of pahani for the year 1965-66

Ex.A5CC of pahani for the year 1968-69

Ex.A6CC of pahani for the year 1975-76

Ex.A7CC of pahani for the year 1981-82

Ex.A8CC of pahani for the year 1990-91

Ex.A9CC of pahani for the year 1995-96 4 of 5

Fair O.S.No.158/2020

Ex.A10CC of pahani for the year 2000-01

Ex.A11CC of pahani for the year 2005-06

Ex.A12CC of pahani for the year 2010-11

Ex.A13Original patta pass book

Ex.A14Mee seva 1-B Namoona

DEFENDANT S

Nil

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL 5 of 5

Fair O.S.No.28/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT: GAJWEL

Present:- K. Venkata Mallik Subrahmanya Sarma,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Gajwel.

Monday, the 22nd day of August, 2022.

O.S.No. 28 of 2022

Between:

Masigari Hamsavva @ Lalitha W/o: Mallesh, Age: 28 years, Occ: Household, R/o: Rayapole village and mandal, Siddipet District …Plaintiff

And

1.Methuku Balaiah S/o: Narayana, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agri, R/o: Akkaram village, Gajwel mandal, Siddipet District.

2.Methuku Yadavva W/o: Balaiah, Age: 50 yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o: Akkaram village, Gajwel mandal, Siddipet District.

3.Nimmaraju Lavanya W/o: Maisaiah, Age: 25 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o:Veeranagar, H/o: Ankireddypally village, Rayapole mandal, Siddipet Dist.

4.Jupally Kankavva W/o: Praveen Kumar, Age: 23 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: Bahilampur village, Mulugu mandal, Siddipet District.

5.Gangadaari Lavanya W/o: Raju, Age: 21 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: Tankampet H/o. Kothapally village, Rayapole mandal, Siddipet District.

6.The Tahsildar cum Joint Sub Registrar, Gajwel mandal, Siddipet District.

… Defendants

CLAIM: SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION

Plaint Filed U/O VII Rule 1 & 2, R/W Sec 26 Of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Date of presentation of plaint: 19.01.2022

Date of registration of plaint: 20.01.2022

This suit is coming before me on 22.08.2022 for passing consent decree between the plaintiffs and defendants and the plaintiff is represented by Sri. Ch.Pandari, counsel for Plaintiff and Sri A. Kiran Sagar Rao, counsel for defendants and having stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:

1/4

Fair O.S.No.28/2022

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the defendants for partition and separate possession and to allot into five equal shares and allot 1/5th share to plaintiff, defendant No.1 to 5 in respect of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.208/A/3, to an extent of Ac.0-02 gts, Sy.No. 209/A/3, to an extent of Ac.0-01 gts, Sy.No.210/A/3 to an extent of Ac.0-14 gts, Sy.No. 211/A/3 to an extent of Ac.0-1 ½ gts, Sy.No.

235/E/3 to an extent of Ac.0-30 gts, and Sy.No.236/A4/3, to an extent of Ac.0-09 gts, total extent of Ac.1-17 ½ gts, situated at Akkaram village, Gajwel mandal, Siddipet

District and bounded on:

Boundary Description of boundary

EastLand of Sri Methuku Kithataiah

WestLand of Sri Methuku Swamy and BAATA

NorthLand of Sri Goundla Ramulu

SouthLand of Sri Methuku Sri Ramulu

Hereinafter referred as “Suit Land”

2.Case of the Plaintiff: (i) That the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 5 are family members and father of plaintiff Sri Methuku Balaiah, is the owner and possessor of suit schedule property and they are succeeded the properties as ancestral and joint properties and the plaintiff and defendant No.3 to 5 as legal heirs of defendant No.1 & 2. That the plaintiff is residing at Rayapole village since her marriage and in her absence the defendant No.1 to 5 hatched a plan and colluded each other and transfer the suit schedule properties on the name of defendant No.3 to 5 and are trying to alienate the same to third parties. That on 10.12.2021 the plaintiff demanded the defendants for partition but they bluntly refused.

2/4

Fair O.S.No.28/2022

3.The counsels for defendants and plaintiff have jointly filed a petition

U/Or.XXIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and the Defendants have endorsed no objection on the petition and have submitted that the terms filed under

Memorandum of Understanding is acceptable by them and this court after going through the terms have found the same to be valid and are not against any law and further this court has ascertained the free will of the defendant in accepting the terms, have allowed the IA No. of 2022 filed U/R 109(2) of CRP R/W Sec. 151 of CPC.

NOW THE CONSENT DECREE IS DRAWN AS UNDER

(1)That the plaintiff hereby in pursuance of out of court settlement admit the ownership and title of defendant No.1 to 5 and confirm by receiving cash of

Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) from the defendant No.1 to 5.

(2)That the plaintiff has no objection to dismiss the suit in terms of compromise without costs. That the contents of the compromise petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief.

4.In the result, the suit is decreed as per the terms arrived at by the parties and in circumstances no costs are awarded.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 22nd day of August, 2022.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL 3/4

Fair O.S.No.28/2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS

- None -- None -

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS

-Nil--Nil-

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL 4/4