APAN100000202010 1
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),
PENUKONDA
Present : Sri K.RAKESH,
Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Penukonda
Friday, the 14th day of November, 2025
ORIGINAL SUIT No.216 of 2010
Between: - S.Lakshmi Prasad, S/o Late Anjineyulu, aged about 47 years, Cultivation, R/o Eguvagadda, Penukonda. … Plaintiff.
- And -
1. A.R.Naveen Kumar Reddy, S/o Elipeta Rama Krishna Reddy, aged about 42 years, R/o Mittameedapalli, Kirikera Post, Hindupur Mandal.
2. Dasari Rangappa, S/o Dasari Ravanappa, aged about 79 years, Cultivation, Eguvagadda, Penukonda. (Died) L.Rs defendant Nos.3 and 4.
3. Dasari Chandramma, W/o Late Dasari Rangappa, aged 62 years, Cultivation. (Died)
4. Dasari Thirumalesh, S/o Late Dasari Rangappa, aged about 32 years, Cultivation. Defendant No.4 is resident of Reddyvaari Veedhi, Penukonda.
(Defendant Nos.3 and 4 are added as per orders in I.A.No.427/2017 dt.16.07.2018. Defendant No.3 is died. Defendant No.4 is her only son is already on record). … Defendants.
This suit came up for final hearing before me on 11.08.2025 in the presence of Sri H.S.Narayana Gowd, Sri C.R.Nagarjuna, Sri K.R.Indu Sekhar, Sri B.Sreenivasulu and Sri K.Sudarshan, Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri T.Chandrashekar Reddy, Sri Dr.V.Yagneshwar and Sri R.Shekar Reddy, Advocates for Defendant No.1 and of Sri G.Madan Mohan Reddy, Advocate for Defendant Nos.2 to 4 and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following :-
APAN1000002020102
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for declaring the right, title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and give possession of the suit property through Court after removal of the fencing and shed in the suit property constructed by 1st defendant on 02.09.2016 through Court by way of Mandatory
Injunction and give vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and also prayed to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant
No.1 directing the 1st defendant to remove the fencing and shed laid by him on 02.09.2019 at his cost and in case if he fails to do so permit the plaintiff do the same by way of Mandatory Injunction through Court at the cost of the 1st defendant.
The plaintiff prayed this Court to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the 1st defendant for Rs.25,000/- per annum towards damages till the removal of the fencing through Court and also for the future damages till taking possession of the property through Court and award costs and grant such other relief or reliefs as the
Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
2. The facts of the plaintiff’s case, in brief, is that :-
(a) As glean from the plaint, it is the case of the plaintiff that one Sigichetla
Chalapathi resident of Eguvagadda of Penukonda Town has two sons namely
S.Anjineyulu and S.Jayaramulu and that they were the members of joint Hindu
Family out of which Chalapathi was the manager of the joint family S.Jayaramulu has relinquished his share and executed a registered relinquishment deed
dt:12.06.1973. Thus the said Chalapathi and his son Anjineyulu have become
absolute owners of the properties of the joint family. The plaintiff submitted that
S.Anjineyulu S/o Chalapathi has filed a suit against his father Chalapathi for partition and separate possession of his Half (½) share of all the joint family properties in O.S.No.12/1978 on the file of Sub-Ordinate Judge's Court, Anantapur now it is Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Ananthapuramu and that the said suit was ended in compromise and a decree was passed by the Hon'ble Court on
APAN1000002020103 03.03.1978. The plaintiff submitted that the total extent of the suit survey number is an extent of Ac.16-48 cents of land out of it Ac.8-24 cents of land on Eastern side was allotted to the share of Anjineyulu. Ever since the date of purchase said
Anjineyulu was in possession and enjoyment of the said half (½) share during his lifetime and after his death, the plaintiff who is his son is in possession and enjoyment of the said property and that the pattadar pass book is also issued by the Tahsildar, Penukonda.
b) The plaintiff submitted that during the pendency of the suit the defendant
No.2 died leaving behind him his wife and son as his successors. Hence they are added as defendants 3 and 4.
Amended as per orders in I.A.427/2017 dt:16-07-2018.
c) The plaintiff submitted that one Lakshmidevamma of Challapalli Village,
Somandepalli Mandal is the wife of Jayaramulu who is the son of Chalapathi and that the said Lakshmidevamma has filed a suit against her husband Jayaramulu and Chalapathi in O.S.No.138/1979 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda for maintenance and sought for a charge over the alleged 1/3rd share of Jayaramulu in the suit survey number and that the said Anjineyulu was not a party to the said suit in O.S.No.138/1979 and hence the said decree and Judgment are not maintainable on Anjineyulu and it appears of contest, the said suit was decreed on 20-11-1989 by granting maintenance to the said Lakshmidevamma and created a charge over 1/3rd share in the suit survey number against Jayaramulu and Chalapathi. The plaintiff submitted that as Anineyulu was not a party to the suit, the charge was created in the half (½) share of Chalapathi that to 1/3rd share. The plaintiff submitted that no suit is filed and charge is asked against the half (½) share of
Anjineyulu and instead of asking a charge on 1/3rd share in Chalapathi's half (½) share as if charge is asked for in the entire extent also is not binding on Anjineyulu.
The plaintiff submitted that the charge must be 1/3rd share in the half (½) share of
Chalapathi i.e. on western half portion of Ac.8-24 cents of land in the suit survey number.
APAN1000002020104
d) The plaintiff submitted that though the said suit in O.S. No.138/1979 was decreed, and a charge was created, said Lakshmidevamma never brought the charged property for sale for recovery of maintenance amount. The period of limitation for execution of the decree in O.S. No.138/1979 is only 12 years and that the said Lakshmidevamma has not executed the decree especially against the charged property in the suit survey number. The plaintiff submitted that except a decree for maintenance and a charge for realization of maintenance amount, said
Lakshmidevamma has no right over the 1/3rd share in the suit survey number and that the said Lakshmidevamma never in possession and enjoyment of any share in the suit survey number or in the other properties fell to the share of Chalapathi in
O.S.No.12/1979 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu. Thus the
said Lakshmidevamma W/o Jayaramulu now resident of Challapalli in
Somandepalli Mandal has no right in any portion of extent in the suit survey number. The plaintiff submitted that after disposal of the suit in O.S.No.138/79, said Lakshmidevamma and her husband Jayaramulu colluded together and filed a suit in O.S.No.44/1983 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Penukonda for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in all the family properties challenging the relinquishment deed dt:12-06-1973 against his father Chalapathi and his brother Anjineyulu (The father of the plaintiff) and others. The plaintiff submitted that on contest, the said suit in O.S.No.44/1983 was dismissed on contest on 17.01.1986 and an issue was also framed in O.S.No.44/1983 as the relinquishment deed dt:12-06-1973 is true, valid or is it a sham and a nominal. The plaintiff submitted that even that issue is also considered by the Hon'ble Court and that the said Jayaramulu the husband of Lakshmidevamma has not preferred any appeal. Thus the decree and judgment in O.S.No.44/1983 dt.17-01-1986 has become final and it is also binding on Lakshmidevamma as she is claiming right through her husband. The plaintiff submitted that even Lakshmidevamma has not filed any suit for claiming a right in the properties.
APAN1000002020105 e) The plaintiff submitted that Chalapathi the father of Anjineyulu and
Jayaramulu, has sold away his share of properties that had fallen to the share in
O.S.No.12/1978 to various persons and that the said Chalapathi had sold his half
(½) share in the suit survey number on western side i.e. an extent of Ac 8-24 cents of land to the 2nd defendant herein and the 2nd defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the said half (½) share of Chalapathi land. The plaintiff submitted that except the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant nobody has any right, title or possession in the total extent of the suit survey number.
f) The plaintiff submitted that the 1st defendant herein is a rich, powerful and influential person and he is also politically influenced and that the 1st defendant knowing well that Lakshmidevamma W/o Jayaramulu has no right in suit survey number has obtained a sale deed for 1/3rd share by showing boundaries for full extent of Ac.16-45 cents under a registered sale deed dt:10.12.2007. The plaintiff submitted that the 1st defendant influencing the Tahsildar of Penukonda sought for mutation of his name in the suit survey number under the registered sale deed
dt:10-12-207 and that the Tahsildar, Penukonda without considering the merits of
the above said transaction simply ordered for mutation and not detailed enquiry was conducted and no copy of the order was communicated to the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that after coming to know the said order the plaintiff has applied for copies and that even that is not granted by the Tahsildar, Penukonda due to influence of the 1st defendant. But the plaintiff has preferred an appeal before the
R.D.O. Penukonda and the said appeal is pending.
g) The Plaintiff submits that as Lakshmidevamma W/o Jayaramulu has right, title or possession over any extent in the suit survey number and that she has no right to convey or sell the property and that the 1st defendant is also not entitled to any right over the suit survey number and that the alleged sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant is a nominal and it is created for the purpose of litigation. Thus the 1st defendant has no right, title or possession in any portion of the suit survey number.
APAN1000002020106
h) The Plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of eastern portion in the suit survey number with specific boundaries i.e., East: Land of Jyothappa and Ramanappa, West: land of Dasari Rangappa, North: Land of
Thimmaiah now in possession of P.Seshappa, South: Land of Jyothappa. In view of the sale deed dt:10-12-2001, the 1st defendant is now openly threatening the plaintiff to trespass into the land of the plaintiff. The plaintiff submits that as the 1st defendant has taken the sale deed for the alleged joint 1/3rd share in his sale deed
dt:10-1-2007, the remedy of the 1st defendant is to file a suit for partition and
separate possession through Court. Instead of doing so, the 1" defendant is trying to occupy the land of the plaintiff and the land of the 2nd defendant. Admittedly the plaintiff's 1/3d share is not in dispute. The dispute is only for 1/6th share i.e. the suit property more fully described in the suit property and now towards it is called as suit property. The plaintiff submits that to avoid legal complication, the present suit is filed for 1/6th share in the suit survey number and also alternatively mentioning in the schedule for an extent of Ac.2-74 cents which is equal to 1/6th joint share by showing the boundaries alternatively. Thus the 1st defendant has no manner of right, title or possession over the suit property. As the 1st defendant is rich, powerful and influential person, now he is trying to trespass into the suit property and also denying the title of the plaintiff over the suit property. The plaintiff submits that the 2nd defendant is also added as proper and necessary party to the suit as he is the purchaser of the half (½) share of the Chalapathi, to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
The plaintiff submits that he is an agriculturist, poor and he has no support of anybody, hence the plaintiff has no other go except to filethis suit.
i) The plaintiff submits that he has filed injunction petition along with suit in
I.A. No.470/2010 on the file of this Court against the 1st defendant and that this
Hon'ble Court pleased to close the I.A. No.470/2010 that both parties must maintain
status quo during the pendency of the suit and closed the said petition on 19.11.2012 against the order and decretal order in I.A. No.470/2010 and that the 1st defendant herein filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.8/2012 on the file of Hon’ble
APAN1000002020107
Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda and that the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge allowed the
C.M.A. by directing this Hon'ble court to pass speaking order on merits and allowed the C.M.A. on 16-08-2013 and that the said I.A. is still pending and at no point of time the 1st defendant in the suit did not get ready in the said I.A. in view of change of government at present the 1st defendant through his men namely his father
Ramakrishna Reddy, his father-in-law Ranga Reddy and others influenced the local
S.H.O. showing the judgment in C.M.A.No.8/2012 that the matter is decided in their favour and with the help of local S.H.O. harassed the plaintiff by calling him to the police station and asked the plaintiff either to settle the dispute as they demand or give possession of the suit property to them and asked the plaintiff to stand in the police station morning till evening. The plaintiff submits that he got issued a notice through his Advocate on 28-08-2019 to local Advocate for the 1st defendant
Smt.Jayakala, Advocate, Penukonda and to 1st defendant and that the plaintiff is not aware of the fact that the 1st defendant is in America and that only his father and
Ranga Reddy and others have influenced the S.H.O.Penukonda. The plaintiffs sub- mits that he got issued a notice to S.H.O. Penukonda, S.P. of Police Anantapur and
Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and nobody has taken any action and that the
S.H.O. Penukonda allowed the men of the 1st defendant to plough the suit property and also the equal share of defendants 2 to 4 in total Ac.5.52 cents through tractor and laid white slab fencing all along Ac.5.52 cents on 2-10-2019 with the help of
S.H.O. Penukonda. The plaintiff submitted that the vendor of 1st defendant has no manner of right, title or possession over the suit schedule property and that the 1st defendant is also not in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff submitted that in view of KIA factory near Penukonda the value of the lands nearby Penukonda have gone up abnormally and that the 2nd defendant in the suit died pending suit and the defendants 3 and 4 are his legal heirs who were brought on record recently. The plaintiff submitted that the above suit is pending and posted for filing
additional written statement if any on behalf of the defendants including 1st
defendant in the suit.
APAN1000002020108
j) The plaintiff submitted that the 1st defendant without filing the Additional
Written statement filed a memo through his Advocate Smt. Jayakala to prolong the suit as for as possible and while the above suit is pending the S.H.O. Penukonda harassed the plaintiff and stated that no suit is pending and the matter is decided in favour of the 1st defendant by showing the Judgment in C.M.A.8/2012 on the file of
Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda. The 1st defendant has encroached the suit property
on 02-10-2019 and also had fencing all along it. He has also raised a shed in the encroached portion of the land video is also available. In spite of protest made by the plaintiff the men of the 1st defendant have encroached the suit property. The plaintiff have no other go except to seek a relief of alternative possession of the suit property and also for relief of Mandatory Injunction to remove the fencing and also shed which was laid on 02-10-2019 through Court. The plaintiff is also claiming damages for wrongful occupation of the suit property by 1st defendant with the help of S.H.O. Penukonda of Rs.25,000/- per annum till the disposal of the suit and also taking possession of the property through Court. Hence the suit.
3. a) The defendant No.1 filed his written statement denying the allegations mentioned in the plaint. The defendant No.1 submitted that the plaint filed in O.S.
No.216 of 2010 for the relief of declaration of right of title and for permanent injunction against the defendants is not maintainable either in law or in facts of the case and the same may be dismissed with costs. The defendant No.1 submitted that the contents of plaint Para Nos.1 to 14 are deemed to be denied unless specifically admitted by this defendant in the following written statement. The relationship stated in the Para No.1 of the plaint cannot be easily understood without pedigree of Singi Chetla Chalapathi of Penukonda.
APAN1000002020109
Pedigree is as follows:-
Hanumanth Rayudu (died)
Singichetla Chalapathi (died on 28-12-1999)
S. Jayaramulu (died) S.Anjaneyulu (died) = Laxmidevamma (Defendant No.1's Vendor) Laxmi Prasad (Plaintiff)
b) The defendant No.1 submitted that the contents of Para No.1 of the plaint and the suit schedule clearly disclose that the entire litigation in O.S.No.12/1978 and Original Suit No.44 of 1983, on the file of Hon’ble Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Penukonda and alleged Relinquish Deed Dated have been executed by
S. Jayaramulu in favour of Chalapathi is of collusive. The defendant No.1 submitted that all the litigation was brought up to avoid legal right, obligation on the part of
Jayaramulu and his wife and that the relationship between Anjaneyulu, Chalapathi,
Jayaramulu is true and correct. The defendant No.1 submitted that the Sy. No. 686 and its extent Ac.16.48 cents is true and correct. But half share of Anianevulu out of 16.148 guntas i.e., 8.24 guntas allotting eastern side and delivery of possession through partition decree is a myth/bliss and not correct. The defendant No.1 submitted that it is all imaginary and it is only misguiding the Hon'ble Court. The defendant No.1 submitted that the alleged compromise decree in O.S. No. 12/1978
Dated 03.03.1978 is not acted upon and the same view was taken by this Hon'ble
Court and at all relevant point of time. Therefore, the plaintiff was allotted half share of Anjaneyulu and with possession thereof is incorrect and false. There was no partition between Anianevulu and his brother Jayaramulu and other father
Chalapathi. There is no date, place and time of partition of suit property into two halves. The defendant No.1 submitted that in the absence of this important material facts the plaintiff's father (Anjaneyulu) possession over the suit property and after
APAN10000020201010 death the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment are only illusory and imaginary. The defendant No.1 submitted that the pattadar pass book alleged to have been issued by the Tahsildar, Penukonda without notice to these defendants or his vendor is nothing but manipulation of the record, obtained by fraud. Strictly according to law
Plaintiffs and defendant No.2, ROR Pass Books are not a legally enforceable document, and not binding on this defendant. The defendant No.1 submitted that the contents of Para No.5 of the plaint is partly correct and rest is denied. The defendant No.1 submitted that it is true that, Laxmidevamma, W/o. Jayaramulu, the first son of Chalapathi filed suit O.S. No.138/1979, on the file of this Hon'ble Court and for non compliance of decree Laxmidevamma filed E.P.No.5/1987 for the realization of the decreetal maintenance amounts, Jayaramulu died leaving
Laxmidevamma as a legal heir, the relationship of Laxmidevamma with Jayaramulu is not denied. All the objections raised by Jayaramulu and Chalapathi defendant
No.1 in O.S. No. 138/1979 were rejected and that the same plea cannot be raised in this O.S. No.216/2010 and it is not maintainable on the principles of resjudicata.
The defendant No.1 submitted that the plaint is liable to be rejected under the principles U/Sec. 11 of C.P.C. The appeal Suit No. 8/1982 and Second Appeal No.
2/1987 filed by Chalapathi was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in 2002. The decree passed in O.S.No.138/1979, became final including charge over the properties mentioned therein. The suit property is item No.1 in O.S.No.138 of 1979. Therefore any alienation by S.Chalapathi in Sy.No.686 is illegal, void and cannot be looked into including the decree in O.S.No.12/1978 and O.S.No.44/1983.
For ready reference the entire litigation of the family is put in a chart for just decision of this case.
I. IN THE COURT OF THE HON'BLEII. IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PENUKONDA.SUBORDINATEJUDGEAT
PENUKONDA.
O.S.No.138/1979 O.S.No. 12/1978
APAN10000020201011
BetweenBetween :
S.Lavmidevamma ...PlaintiffS.Anineyulu ...Plaintiff
AndAnd
1. S.Jayaramulu1. S.Chalapathi
2. S.Chalapathi ...Defendants2. S.Gundamma ...Defendants
RELIEF SOUGHT: RELIEF SOUGHT FOR PARTITION
Suit filed for maintenance of Rs.200/- perSuit ended in compromise on 03.03.1978 month Rs.35/- towards House Rent.I.A.No.323/1978. Rs.180/- per year towards clothing.
Suit presented on 19-03-1979III. IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE Suit was decreed on 20-11-1981.SUBORDINATEJUDGEAT Suit Schedule properties:PENUKONDA
1. Land in Sy.No.686, ext. Ac.16-45 centsO.S.No. 44/1983
2. Land in Sy.No.444, ext. Ac.7-00 cents
3. House bearing No.7/128Between:
4. House site bearing D.No. 7/175-AS.Jayaramulu … Plaintiff
5. House with D.No.1/28-1And
6. Term Deposit in Cash Rs.10.000/-1. S.Chalapathi 5.8.1 Penukonda2. Anjneyulu
7. Special Term deposit for Rs.10,000/-3. Gundamma & 11 others S.B.I., Penukonda. … Defendants
8. Fixed Deposit of Rs.10,000/- Anantapuramu District Co-operativeRELIEF SOUGHT IN THIS SUIT: Central Bank.Suit for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd in A, B, C Schedule ISSUES FRAMED:properties.
1. Is the Plaintiff entitled to any amount as maintenance and if so what amount?A Schedule
2. Is the plaintiff entitled to a charge on 1/3rd share in the plaint schedulei) Land in Sy.No.686, extent Ac.16-45 properties for realization of maintenancecents. amount?ii) Land in Sy.No.444, extent Ac.7-00
3. To what relief?cents
Appeal preferred by Chalapathi beforeB Schedule the Hon'ble Subordinate Judge at Penukonda.i. House site bearing D No.7/175-A ii. House with D.No.1/28-1
APAN10000020201012
A.S.No.8 of 1982 C Schedule
Between:Total movable properties Cash, Gold and S.Chalapathi Silver worth Rs.1,44,000/- … Appellant/Defendant No.2 ISSUES FRAMES: ANDi. Is the Plaintiff entitled for partition and separate possession in Schedule A & B
1) S.Laxmidevammaproperties. … Respondent/Plaintiff.ii. Is the relinquishment deed dated
2) S.Jayaramulu12.06.1973 refereed in the plaint true
... Respondent/Defendant No.2and valid or is it a Sham and nominal
transaction. Appeal was dismissed on 25-09-1986. iii. Is the compromise decree in of Second appeal was preferred byO.S.No.12/78, on the file Subordinate ChalapathiJudge Court, Anantapur not binding on the plaintiff. IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREOFA.P.ATWhat are the properties liable for HYDERABAD.partition.
The Suit was dismissed on 17-01-1986 S.A.No. 2 of 1987
Second Appeal was dismissed on 21-06- 2002.
c) The defendant No.1 submitted that the contents of Para No.6 is incorrect and false. The plaintiff has suppressed the facts. On perusal of the record, this defendant came to know Laxmidevamma filed E.P.No.5/1987 and all the objections raised by the Chalapathi again in different legal footing was discarded by this
Hon'ble Court. The defendant No.1 submitted that Laxmidevamma is a coparcener
as per the admission in this plaint. Since, the partition of the property of Chalapathi is not finally concluded. The alleged partition decree in O.S. No.12/1978 between
Anjaneyulu, plaintiff Chalapathi and Gundamma ended in compromise on 03.03.1978 is not binding on Laxmidevamma as the same is not considered in
O.S. No.138/1979. Neither Laxmidevamma nor her husband Jayaramulu are
APAN10000020201013 parties to the O.S. No.12/1978. Hence, the decree alleged to have been passed in
O.S. No.12/1978 Dated 03.03.1978 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge is
non-est in the eye of law and do not effect the rights of the family members/coparceners. The defendant No.1 submitted that the decree in O.S. No.
12/1978 is obtained by playing fraud.
d) The defendant No.1 submitted that Plaint Para No.7 is incorrect and false allegation of collusion between Laxmidevamma and Jayaramulu as stated in Para
No.7 is contradictory plea of the plaint Paras No.1 to 6. The issue about relinquishment deed cannot be questioned in O.S. No.44/1983 as this issue attained finality in Second Appeal No.2/1987, dated 21.06.2002. Therefore the
Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.44 of 1983 is not binding on
Lakshmidevamma. The defendant No.1 submitted that after the death of
Jayaramulu, Laxmidevamma has inherited in all the properties item Nos. 1 to 9 as mentioned in O.S.No.138 of 1979. The land in Sy. No. 686 total extent is Ac.16.48 cents in which Laxmidevamma was having 1/3rd share comes to Ac.5.48 cents, sold to Defendant No.1 through a registered sale deed bearing No.4470/2007,
Dated 10.12.2007. This defendant's name was mutated in the revenue records in
the due process of law under section 5-A of ROR Act. The said Laxmidevamma having half share in her father-in-law Chalapathi properties in Items No.1 to 3 and 5 to 9 (of O.S.No.138 of 1979). Till now there is no occasion a raised to demand for partition. The defendant No.1 submitted that Laxmidevamma and Jayaramulu did not jointly or together file O.S. No.44/1983 and that Laxmidevamma was not a party to it and was not living with Jayaramulu from 1973 onwards and she was not in taking terms with him, hence the alleged decree passed in O.S. No. 44/1983 is not binding on Laxmidevamma and she do not have any knowledge i.e., the Vendor of this Defendant. The defendant No.1 submitted that all the alienation & decrees are not binding on the defendant and Laxmidevamma. The defendant No.1 submitted that the contents of Para No.8 is incorrect and false. The plaintiff is making contradictory statement and also not disclosed the entire facts and litigations. All
APAN10000020201014 the litigation details are stated above. The names of persons purchased from
Jayaramulu and Chalapathi are not stated in the plaint by the Plaintiff. As per the admission of this plaintiff in Para No.8 for brevity sake "Chalapathi and father of
Anjaneyulu and Jayaramulu, had sold away his share of properties that had fallen to the share in O.S. No. 12/1978 to various persons", falsify the plea of partition between Chalapathi and Anjaneyulu. The defendant No.1 submitted that the alleged sale transaction between Chalapathi. Defendant No.2 i.e., Dasari
Rangappa is illegal, incorrect and false for the aforesaid reasons. The defendant
No.1 submitted that the said Rangappa is not in physical possession of Ac.8.24 cents and he has not purchased an inch of land in Sy.No.686 and he is not in physical possession. The defendant No.1 submitted that Plaintiff and Defendant
No.2 colluded and trying to induct in suit Sy.No.686 to the extent of Ac.8.24 cents.
e) The defendant No.1 submitted that the present suit filed by the Plaintiff is a third round of litigation to defeat the rights of Defendant No.1 and that the
Laxmidevamma is having half share in the Chalapathi property after the death of
Jayaramulu, her husband. In view of the relationship with Laxmi Devamma as a coparcener with the plaintiff, his father Anjaneyulu and grand father Chalapathi are bound to follow the law and procedure to comply the decree passed in O.S.No.138 of 1979 from the date of decree of the suit. Without setting aside the decree passed in O.S.No.138 of 1979, all the alienations made by Chalapathi, Jayramulu, Anjenulu are illegal and void. By virtue of the decree O.S. No. 138/1979 and the partition to suit O.S. No.12/1978 and O.S.No.44/1983 are not binding not only for the reasons stated above for the reason Chalapathi, Anjaneyulu and Jayaramulu are having full knowledge and notice about the charge in O.S. No.138/1979. The relinquishment deed of 1973 was never accepted in the entire litigation. On the other hand the right of Laxmidevamma and her legal right created by this Hon'ble Court has been confirmed in all the appellate courts and became final. Non preferring of appeal by
Laxmidevamma with regard to decrees passed in O.S.No.12 of 1978 and O.S.No.
44 of 1983 or any proceedings is not fatal or legally disable her from the alienation
APAN10000020201015 made by her in favour of Defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 submitted that the contents Para No.9 of the Plaint is incorrect and false. The 1 defendant is only an employee in a software company at Hyderabad and he has purchased Ac.5.48 cents in Sy. No.686 bonafidely belonging to his vendor. Title of Ac.5.48 cents through the Registered sale deed bearing No. 4470/2007, dated: 10-12-2007 in consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. This defendant vendor i.e., Smt. Laxmi property
Ac.5.48 cents for her legal necessities i.e., medical expenses and to clear the debts, as mentioned in the registered sale deed No. 4470/2007 and the same is legal and binding on all the coparceners.
f) The defendant No.1 submitted that the contents of paragraph No.9 and the schedule annexed to the plaint clearly shows sale deed boundaries are correct and that the plaint schedule is not tallied to the spot boundaries. The defendant No.1 submitted that the plaintiff is uncertain about the land for which he seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and one hand the plaintiff denied the sale deed boundaries and other hand appears to have mentioned same boundaries in the schedule. Therefore the plaintiff cannot blow hot and cold at appoint of time.
The defendant No.1 submitted that it is not correct to state that the Tahsildar has not made any enquiry at the time of mutation of this defendant's name in ROR records and at the time of issuing pass book. The defendant No.1 submitted that the plaintiff and Defendant No.2 i.e., Dasari Rangappa have filed objections before
Tahsildar, the said objections were over rules and ROR Pass Books were issued to this defendant. The defendant No.1 submitted that the Tahsildar mainly considered the registered sale deed and the right of the vendor and the physical possession thereof on Ac.5.48 cents and issued pass books. The defendant No.1 submitted that the Tahsildar, Penukonda is entitled to pass order under the provisions of ROR
Act. 1971 and even appeal before the R.D.O. was also dismissed and the Tahsildar order became final after part of the suit physical verification of the land. The defendant No.1 submitted that this defendant purchased schedule property bonafidely with defacto of delivery of possession and to the knowledge of the
APAN10000020201016
Plaintiff and the Defendant No.2. Without seeking the relief of recovery of possession and cancellation of registered sale deed document bearing No.4470 of 2007 for the relief of Declaration and permanent injunction is not maintainable and may be dismissed in limini.
g) The defendant No.1 submitted that, the contents of Para No.10 is incorrect and false and that the Laxmidevamma as a family member of Chalapathi and the only the legal heir of Jayaramulu has 1/3rd share in Sy. No. 686 and her claim to the extent of 1/3rd share is legal and binding on the plaintiff and the other contents of Para No.10 saying that sale deed of this defendant is nominal created for the purpose of suit cannot be accepted. The defendant No.1 submitted that the adverse comments made in Para No.10 and other contents of the plaint against this defendant is specifically denied. The defendant No.1 submitted that since the
Laxmidevamma has right and possession and Jayaramulu's name she has right and possession along with title and she has absolute right to transfer the title and accordingly transferred to this defendant through registered sale deed No.
4470/2007 with defacto delivery of possession. The sale deed is acted upon all the contents in Para No.10 are self serving statements. Without setting aside the sale deed No.4470/2007, Dated 10.12.2007, suit for declaration and for permanent injunction as framed is not maintainable. The defendant No.1 submitted that the
Provisions of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act and Sec.39 of Transfer of
Property Act, bars from filing this suit.
h) The defendant No.1 submitted that the contents of Para No.11 is incorrect and false. It is incorrect to state that plaintiff is in possession of Ac.8.24 cents in Sy.
No.686. Already this defendant has obtained possession on 10.12.2007 by virtue of
Registered Sale Deed No.4470/2007, and this defendant cannot be called as a trespasser and he is only the real owner as he bonafidely purchased the property from the rightful owner. The defendant No.1 submitted that the plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property is imaginary and the suit is based on assumption and presumptions and is liable to be dismissed. The defendant No.1 submitted that
APAN10000020201017 the legal advise stated in Para No.11 could have been to the plaintiff and defendant
No.2, but not to this defendant. Hence, the claim of plaintiff stated in Para No.11 is incorrect and it is not stated how plaintiff assumed 1/6th share in the suit schedule property. The defendant No.1 submitted that the contents of Para No.7 do not convey meaning to give suitable reply. If at all the plaintiff is in possession, the plaintiff would have draw a rough sketch plan of the entire of extent of Ac.16.48 guntas with specific boundaries of his possession, as required under Order VII Rule 1 to 3 of CPC. The defendant No.1 submitted that the suit schedule property description is vague and incorrect and do not tally at the spot. The defendant No.1 submitted that the plaintiff is silent on which date he came into possession over the suit schedule property and that similarly the Plaint is silent on which date the defendant No 2 came into possession of Ac.8.24 cents in Sy. No. 686 these are material facts suppressed by the plaintiff in the paint, as such the above suit maintainable and liable to dismissed.
i) The defendant No.1 submitted that the market value of the suit property is under valued and this Hon'ble Court may not have Pecuniary Jurisdiction and that the value of the suit property is more than one lakh in 2010. The defendant No.1 submitted that the suit relief for declaration, permanent injunction is a discretionary relief's under the provisions of Specific Relief Act is purely discretionary power of the Hon'ble Court and the same cannot be exercised in favour of Plaintiff and that since the plaint is already numbered as O.S.No.216/2010 may be dismissed at this stage and that there is no cause of action to file the suit. The defendant No.1 submitted that the repeated averments that this defendant is politically influential are absolutely false and incorrect and with this averment the Plaintiff cannot get sympathy from this Hon'ble Court.
j) The defendant No.1 submitted that the details of alleged interference and the plaintiff's nature of possession over suit schedule property are not pleaded. The defendant No.1 submitted that the Defendant No.2 is made unnecessarily made as a party to the suit to help the Plaintiff. But the same is not permissible under the
APAN10000020201018 law. The plaint as framed is not maintainable, not only for the above reason, but also abusing the process of law. The defendant No.1 submitted that the contents of
Para No.12 is a repetition of Para No.1. The property mentioned by the defendant is not for the realization of 1/3rd share, charge amount created under the decree of
O.S. No.138/1979. Therefore, the plaintiff's right over half extent in Sy.No.686 and
the alleged Defendant No.2 purchased from Chalapathi is sham and bogus only on presumption and assumption and fatal and they are not in physical Laxmidevamma as a legal heir of Jayaramulu has sold Ac.5.48 possession guntas in Sy. No. 686 to this defendant and he is a bonafide purchaser. In view of purchase of this defendant it is with the notice of plaintiff and Defendant No.2, therefore this
Defendant cannot be called as trespasser. The defendant No.1 submitted that the sale deed acted upon he is in physical possession of Ac.5.48 guntas and his name is recorded in the Adangal Pahani and got ROR pass book the suit against this defendant may be dismissed with costs. The defendant No.1 submitted that the suit is as framed is not maintainable, without praying for cancellation of registered sale deed No.4470/2007 may be dismissed.
k) The defendant No.1 prayed this Court that, the relief of declaration and permanent injunction cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiff and that the suit
O.S.No.216/2010 may be dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand Only).
Additional Written Statement of Defendant No.1.
4. a) The defendant No.1 filed his additional written statement denying the allegations mentioned in the plaint. The defendant No.1 submitted that on the amendment of plaintiff after the death of Defendant No.2 i.e., Dasari Rangappa,
Legal representatives were brought on record by the plaintiff and plaint was amended vide I.A. No.427/2017 dated 16-7-2018. The defendant No.1 submitted that when the plaintiff sought amendment petition vide I.A. No. 354/2019 as per
C.R.P. orders vide C.R.P. No. 631/2021, dated 4-2-2022. Hence this Addl. Written
Statement filed by the Defendant No.1 in addition to written statement already in
APAN10000020201019 detail as on 20/3/2012. The defendant No.1 submitted that originally suit is proposed for "Declaring the right tittle of the plaintiff against the defendant No.1 over the suit schedule property and grant Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant No.1, his men and followers from interfering the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment". After the amendment of plaint relief No.2 and 3 are added as follows.
b) Relief No.2:
Pass a decree in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.1 directing the 1st defendant to remove the fencing and shed laid by him on 02.09.2019 at his cost and in case if he fails to do so permit the plaintiff do the same by way of mandatory injunction through Court at the cost of the 1st defendant.
c) Relief No.3:
Pass a decree in favor of the plaintiff and against the 1st defendant for
Rs. 25,000/- per annum towards damages till the removal of the fencing through court and for the future damages till taking possession of the property through court and award costs and grant such other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
d) The defendant No.1 submitted that the above reliefs are not maintainable, and the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. The allegation of raising fencing and tin shed laid on 02.09.2019 is incorrect and false. Since the defendant No.1's in possession from the date of purchase. The fencing and shed are during course of enjoyment of this defendant to protect his property from the highhanded interference, encroachment by the political leaders. Since the suit schedule property became valuable after the establishment of KIA factory near by
Penukonda. For raising fencing and tin shed there is no prohibitory order against this defendant. On the other hand, this defendant has been establishing his possession over his property to an extent of Ac.5-48 cents as per the registered
Sale Deed purchased from S.Lakshmidevamma vide Sale Deed bearing
No.4470/2007 dated.10-12-2007. The defendant No.1 submitted that as on the date
APAN10000020201020 of purchase by the defendant through above registered sale deed, it is submitted that the vendor of this defendant Smt. Lakshimidevamma's husband S.Jayaramulu and her father in-law S.Chalapathi both died. The defendant No.1 submitted that the collusive Partition Suit became ineffective as per S.A. No.2/87 and E.P.
No.5/1987 in O.S. No.138/1979 and no Final Decree is passed. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 vendor rights have been not disturbed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh. From the all the above Smt. Laksmidevamma became the owner of the suit property in Sy. No.686 to an extent Ac.5-48 cents out of
Ac.16-45 cents i.e., 1/3rd share of the two sons and father and that Smt.
Lakhmidevamma has acquired the property by way of succession from her husband 1/3rd share. As there was no other legal heir to her deceased husband and her in laws also died. The defendant No.1 submitted that the possession of the suit schedule property was already secured by creating a charge towards
Smt. Lakshimidevamma in maintenance suit O.S. No.138/79. As such the plaintiff contention that defendant No.1's vendor Smt. Lakshmidevamma has no right over the suit schedule property is incorrect and false.
e) The defendant No.1 submitted that through the sale deed the defendant
No.1 is put into physical possession over the suit schedule property in 2007 and that his name is recorded in the Revenue Records and from the date of purchase, this defendant is raising groundnuts and other crops and obtained loan from S.B.I.,
Penukonda Branch, vide Account No.30446893606 and Governments benefits and subsidies from the year 2007. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff this defendant illegally occupied the suit schedule property on 02-09-2019 by raising fencing and tin shed are totally false and incorrect. Further the defendant No.1 dug and raised horticulture mango trees, coconut trees and other trees in the suit schedule property for securing safety fencing and tin shed for the residence of the watchmen and spent of Rs.35,00,000/- and it was necessary. As such defendant
No.1 raised fencing and tin shed in his own property but the allegation of dispossession of the plaintiff, hence it is specifically denied as plaintiff is not in
APAN10000020201021 possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time. If really the plaintiff was in possession as on the date of suit, if dispossessed pending the suit would have filed I.A. for restitution but not by way of amendment of suit. There was alternative remedy.
f) The defendant No.1 submitted that as per the above contention of the defendant, plaintiff is neither entitled for Declaration relief nor Recovery of
Possession nor for any other consequential relief of the Mandatory Injunction as prayed in prayer No.2. The flow of title of this defendant is legal, open and possession is continuation from 2007 onwards i.e., as on the date of registration to that effect there is voluminous record to the Vendor of Defendant No.1. This defendant got Rectification Deed in the year 2014 with regard to boundaries without changing the survey number and extent the reasons are mentioned in the
Rectification Deed. The defendant No.1 submitted that since this defendant No.1 possession is legal and for a bonified purchase, Damages @ Rs.25,000/- per annum cannot be granted against the Defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 submitted that in this regard it is specifically submitted that the suit schedule property location is denied and vague and unspecified and uncertain. The defendant No.1 submitted that the plaintiff does not know his own suit schedule property.
g) The defendant No.1 submitted that the plaintiff knowingly and intentionally did not challenge the Smt. Lakshimidevamma proceedings in this suit, and she is not made as a party in this suit O.S. No.216/2010. Despite knowledge to the plaintiff that this defendant purchased from said Lakshimidevamma through registered sale deed.
h) The defendant No.1 submitted that the defendant No.2 Dasari Rangappa died, and the following persons are the legal representatives.
1. Dasari chandramma (Wife)
2. Dasari Thirumalesh (Son)
3. Smt. Venkatalakshmi (Daughter)
APAN10000020201022
i) The defendant No.1 submitted that the suit is bad for non-joinder of above necessary party. This suit is considered bad in eye of law. The defendant No.1 submitted that, since there is no relief against defendant No.2 and his legal heirs herein and colluded with plaintiff got filed written statement. The defendant No.1 submitted that Dasari Rangappa died after filing his written statement on 21-8-2012 in this case vide C.F.R. 2485, dated 25/08/2012 through his Counsel G.Ramesh
Reddy, Advocate on record. The defendant No.1 submitted that no additional pleas by the L.R's are in permitted take by the legal representatives of defendant No.2.
On this count it is crystal-clear, and the plaintiff and defendant No.2 collusively filed this suit. Therefore, the contention of paragraph No.4 (a) denied. The defendant
No.1 submitted that Smt. Lakshmidevamma the vendor of the defendant No.1 filed suit O.S. No.138/1979 on the file of this Hon'ble Court for 1/3rd share of
S.Jayaramulu, 1/3rd share of the property mentioned in O.S. No.138/1979 is sold to the defendant No.1 in 2007. The defendant No.1 submitted that it is incorrect to state that the said Decree is not binding on the Anjaneyulu, after death of
S.Chalapathi were made in the suit schedule O.S.No.138/1979 and more particularly of S.Chalapathi the S.Anjineyulu & S.Jayaramulu became legal heir.
The defendant No.1 submitted that all the properties of S.Chalapathi were made in the suit schedule O.S.No.138/1979 and more particularly land in Sy.No.686. Hence the 1/3rd share of Ac.16-45 cents in Sy.No.686 is to the extent of Ac.5-48 cents and after death of S.Javaramulu, S.Chalapathi and S.Anjineyulu. The defendant No.1 submitted that Smt. Lakshmidevamma is entitled to her 1/3nd share and as such valid and legal. The defendant No.1 has already taken objection that S.Anjineyulu, all legal representatives are necessary and proper parties in a suit for Declaration.
The defendant No.1 submitted that the following persons are the legal representatives.
1. S. Jayalakshmamma (Wife)
2. S. Lakshmi Prasad (Son), plaintiff
3. S. Lavanya (Daughter)
APAN10000020201023
4. S. Lakshmi (Daughter)
The defendant No.1 submitted that the suit is bad for non-joinder of above necessary party. This suit is considered bad in eye of law.
j) The defendant No.1 submitted that the calculation referred in paragraph
No.5 is incorrect and false and it is totally misguiding the Hon'ble Court and against the record. The O.S.No.138/79 became final on the appeal preferred by
S.Chalapthi in S.A. No.2/1987 and cannot be reopened in this suit without any right.
The defendant No.1 submitted that if S.Anjineyulu share of land in Sy.No.686 in
O.S. No.138/79 and his pleading and rights are succeeded by S.Anjineyulu, the
father of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 submitted that S.Anjineyulu during his lifetime did not challenge the defendant No.1 purchase and his son in this suit
O.S.No.216/2010 cannot be permitted to take this plea without all the legal heirs in
a suit for Declaration. Therefore, the suit is barred by Limitation from the date of death of S.Anjineyulu.
k) The defendant No.1 submitted that the contents of paragraph No.11 (a) as introduced by the plaintiff is in respect of Court proceedings in I.A. No.472/2010 and C.M.A. No.8/2012. But the recording contents i.e., the defendant No.1 did not get ready the said I.A. is totally false and against the record. It is denied that 1st defendant Father Ramakrishna Reddy, father-in-law Ranga Reddy and others influenced the local S.H.O. and further the C.M.A. Judgment has decided in favor of defendant No.1 and harassed the plaintiff by calling him to police station. The defendant No.1 submitted that the plaintiff was asked to settle the dispute and give possession to suit schedule property and asked the plaintiff to stand the police station from morning to evening are all denied by this defendant. The defendant
No.1 submitted that it is on record that this defendant No.1/Respondent in I.A. No.
470/2010, if this respondent is not ready the petition I.A. No.470/2010 would have been allowed in favor of petitioner/plaintiff. The defendant No.1 submitted that the
Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda allowed the C.M.A. No.8/2012 allowed on
16-08-2013 setting aside the Order and Decretal Order passed in I.A. No.470/2010
APAN10000020201024 in O.S.No.216/2010, and it is remanded to the trial Court to decide I.A.No.470/2010 on its merits. The defendant No.1 submitted that the plaintiff is not ready at any point of time to hearing of the I.A. after remanding the lower Court from Appeal
Court from the date 16-8-2013 till date. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff this defendant is not ready in I.A. No. 470/2010 and got harassed through police is not correct. The defendant No.1 submitted that the Order of the Hon'ble Court in C.M.A.
No.8/2012 is wrongly interpreted by the plaintiff intentionally and knowingly. The defendant No.1 submitted that the plaintiff got issued notice dt.28-8-2019 and it was suitable replied by this defendant, but it is not aware about the legal notice issued to S.H.O., Penukonda, Chief Minister of A.P. The defendant No.1 submitted that all these contentions of paragraph No.11 (a) are illegal because since the suit O.S.
No.216/2010 is pending in this Hon'ble Court for any illegal activity of any party in respect of suit schedule property remedy lies in this Hon'ble Court by filing appropriate petition but not permitted to issue legal notices and make political scene to gain sympathy. The defendant No.1 submitted that the narration of alleged incident by the plaintiff is nothing but abusing the process of law and plaintiff is not entitled for any benefit.
l) The defendant No.1 submitted that the S.H.O., Penukonda allowed the men of 1st defendant to plough the suit schedule property and also the agreed share of this defendant Nos.2 to 4 i.e., Ac.5-48 cents through tractor and laid white slab fencing all along with Ac.5-48 cents. In this regard the suit schedule property contents are very important to ascertain whether plaintiff is in possession up to 2010 to 2019, if so, what are the boundaries. But this plaintiff, the boundaries mentioned in schedule do not tally at the spot. The defendant No.1 submitted that the Plaintiff did not amend the suit schedule property and with it is vague. This
Hon'ble Court cannot pass unexcitable decree. The defendant No.1 submitted that
the contents of 11 (a) plaint that the vendor of this defendant is has no manner of title and possession over the suit schedule property is specifically denied. It is already amending the earlier paragraphs. The defendant No.1 submitted that the
APAN10000020201025 contention of the plaintiff, is defendant is also not in possession of the suit schedule property. In this regard 1st defendant submitted that there is abundant Revenue record about the mutation and challenging of defendant No.1 name, mutation, and the proceedings under ROR Act and all the proceedings went in favor of this defendant. The defendant No.1 submitted that the plaintiff did not choose to challenge the Revenue entries when the plaintiff is interested party should have challenged. The defendant No.1 submitted that since his name and land is not affected but to harass to Smt. Lakshimidevamma, which is still alive without making her party in the suit and harassing her vendee. It is nothing but again challenging the O.S.No.138/1979.
m) The defendant No.1 submitted that KIA factory establishment is a factor for increasing the value of the lands but there is escalation of the prices all around lands in A.P. It is incorrect to state that after death of 2nd defendant this defendant
No.1 prolonged the suit without filing additional Written Statement. It is unfortunate to bring the Counsel name in the pleadings it is against the Law and practice.
n) The defendant No.1 submitted that a repetition of alleged harassment by the police Penukonda is false and incorrect. Repeated allegations cannot become true facts. If at all the same is true, the plaintiff is not prohibited to take appropriate remedy as per the constitutional rights. All these nothing but wrong advise to the client and also blind following up the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 submitted that it is incorrect to state that 1st defendant encroached in the suit schedule property on 02-10-2019 and fenced it. Raising of the fence and tin shed by these defendants is true and correct but on the defendant land only, but not by way of encroachment or dispossession. The defendant No.1 submitted that the alleged videos and photos are not supplied to this defendant. They are created for the purpose of the case without following law and procedure U/Sec.65 of Evidence Act. It is incorrect and state that despite the protests of the plaintiff, 1st defendant encroached the suit schedule property. If really the plaintiff is in possession over suit schedule property, he would have challenged by including the all the legal heirs of the S.Anjineyulu as
APAN10000020201026 on the date of deliver of the suit schedule property by this defendant in the year 2007 and in the revenue proceedings but not on 02-10-2019. The defendant No.1 submitted that the plaintiff realized about his case O.S. No.216/2010, and it is ripen for trial in 2019. The defendant No.1 submitted that the plaintiff is with ill advice started disturbance in all the forum i.e., police, revenue and political circle. This defendant No.1 furnished his records sale deeds and his vendor record and nowhere the plaintiff contentions is believed and hence the plaintiff approached wrong forum has he knew about his right as on the date for suit but now dragging.
But now it is barred by Limitation. The defendant No.1 submitted that the plaintiff with clever advice created all these fuss without any merit, blaming the police, this defendant seeking possession as if dispossession on 10-10-2019. The defendant
No.1 submitted that the plaintiff was not at in possession in 2010 or prior to 2010 and there is no single scrap of paper till now in this Hon'ble Court to believe the plaintiff ownership and possession. Therefore, the relief of possession to the plaintiff and mandatory injunction for removal of fencing and shed is not at all maintainable and not at all granted.
o) The defendant No.1 submitted that the plaintiff relief Rs.25,000/- per annum towards damages from the defendant No.1 is also not correct. This defendant is not liable to pay damages to the plaintiff. Since defendant No.1 developed agriculture and by way of fencing raising horticulture and became sour eye to the plaintiff and filed this amendment petition claiming damage of
Rs.25,000/- per annum. The facts to arrears damages of Rs.25,000/- in any form much less the crop raised by plaintiff is not stated tosses loss sustained by him. Viz he never claimed that he has raised the crop in the suit schedule property, nor the defendant No.1 damaged any structures in suit schedule property etc.
p) The defendant No.1 submitted that there is no present market value certificate filed by the plaintiff for the payment of court fee is 2021. The suit is undervalued liable to be rejected and market value certificate is filed 2010. In view of changed valuation and hence this Hon'ble Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction.
APAN10000020201027
The plaintiff is trying to misguide the Hon'ble Court to escape the payment of court fee.
q) The defendant No.1 submitted that damages are claimed Rs.25,000/- where is Mandatory Injunction and valuation claimed Rs.25,000/- at a lesser valuation not proper only to harass that this defendant No.1 total payment of Court fee is wrong and correct.
r) The defendant No.1 submitted that the relief No.2 i.e., date of alleged dispossession is stated 02-09-2016 as per I.A. No.354/2019 but where as in the amendment plaint. It is stated 02-09-2019 and this correction is made without permission for this Hon'ble court behind back to the defendant No.1. Hence total amendment of plaint under additional written statement is totally misconceived and misguiding the Hon'ble Court and as liable to be dismissed and rejected.
s) The defendant No.1 submitted that the name of the defendant No.4 Dasari
Thirumalesh in original plaint but in amended suit it is mentioned as Dasari
Thimmaiah. There is no explanation to that effect. There is age difference i.e., when suit is filed stated as 42 years. But in amendment it is stated 32 years. Hence totally a different person is brought into picture. The defendant No.1 submitted that in the amendment plaint it is stated defendant No.3 Dasari Chandramma as dead but not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court and her legal heirs Dasari
Venkatalakshmi Daughter are not brought on record.
t) The defendant No.1 prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the above suit filed by the plaintiff for Declaring the right, title and give vacant possession of the suit schedule property through court by way of Mandatory
Injunction against the Defendant No.1 with costs, as the same is not maintainable either in Law or on facts.
5. a) The defendant No.2 filed his written statement denying the allegations mentioned in the plaint. The defendant No.2 submitted that the allegations made in paragraph No.4 of the plaint that one Sigichetla Chalapathi, President of
Eguvagadda, Penukonda town has two sons namely S.Anjineyulu and
APAN10000020201028
S.Jayaramulu and that they were the members of the joint family of which
Chalapathi was the manager of the joint family and that S.Jayaramulu has relinquished his share and executed a registered relinquishment deed dt.
12.06.1973 and that Chalapathi and his son Anjineyulu have became the absolute owners of the properties of joint family and that S.Anjineyulu S/o Chalapathi has filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his half share in all the joint family properties against his father Chalapathi in O.S.No.12/1978 on the file of the
Subordinate Judge’s Court, Anantapuramu now it is Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s
Court, Penukonda and that the said suit was ended in compromise and compromise decree was passed by the Hon'ble Court on 03.03.1978 and that total extent of the suit survey number is an extent of Ac.16-48 cents of land out of it
Ac.8-24 cents of land on eastern side was allotted to the share of Anjineyulu and that ever since the date of partition the said Anjineyulu was in possession and enjoyment of the said half share during his life time and after his death the plaintiff who is his son is in possession and enjoyment of the said property are true and admitted. The defendant No.2 submitted that the allegations made in paragraph
No.5 of the plaint that one Lakshmidevamma of Challapalli village of Somandepalli
Mandal is the wife of Jayaramulu who is the son of Chalapathi and that said
Lakshmidevamma has filed a suit against her husband Jayaramulu and Chalapathi in O.S. No.138/1979 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda for maintenance and sought for charge over the alleged 1/3rd share of Jayaramulu in the suit survey number are true and admitted.
b) The defendant No.2 submitted that the allegations made in the same paragraph that Anjineyulu was not a party to the said suit in O.S.No. 138/1979 and the said suit and Judgment are not maintainable on Anjineyulu are not correct. The further allegations made in the same paragraph that it appears on contest the said suit was decreed on 20.11.1981 by granting maintenance to the said
Lakshmidevamma and created charge over 1/3rd share in the suit survey number against Jayaramulu and Chalapathi and that as Anjineyulu was not a party to the
APAN10000020201029 said suit, the charge was created in the half share of Chalapathi that too 1/3rd share and that no suit is filed and charge is asked for against the half share of
Anjineyulu and that instead of asking a charge on 1/3rd share in Chalapathi's half share as if charge is asked for in the entire extent also is not binding on Anjineuyulu and that the charge must be 1/3rd share in the half share of Chalapathi i.e., on western half portion Ac.8-24 cents of land in the suit survey number are not correct.
c) The defendant No.2 submitted that the allegations made in paragraph No.6 of the plaint that though the said suit in O.S. No.138/1979 was decreed and a charge was created said Lakshmidevamma never brought the charged property for sale for recovery of maintenance amount and that the period of limitation for execution of decree in O.S. No.138/1979 is only 12 years and that said
Lakshmidevamma has not executed the decree especially against the charged property in the suit survey number are true and admitted. The further allegations made in the same paragraph that except the decree for maintenance amount and charge for realization of amount, said Lakshmidevamma has no right over the 1/3rd right in the suit survey number and that Lakshmidevamma never in possession and enjoyment any share in the suit survey number are in the other proprieties fell to the share of Chalapathi in O.S. No.12/1978 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge,
Anantapuramu and thus said Lakshmidevamma W/o Jayaramulu, President of
Challapalli has no right to any portion of extent in the suit survey number are true and admitted.
d) The defendant No.2 submitted that the allegations made in paragraph
No.7 of the plaint that after disposal of Lakshmidevamma and her husband suit
O.S. No.138/1979, Jayaramulu have colluded together and filed a suit O.S.
No.44/1983 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in all the family properties challenging the relinquishment deed dt.12.06.1973 against his father Chalapathi and his brother
Anjineyulu and others and that on contest the said suit O.S. No.44/1983 was dismissed on contest on 17.01.1986 and that an issue was also framed in O.S.
APAN10000020201030
No.44/1983 as the relinquishment deed dt.12-6-1973 is true and valid or it is a sham and nominal and that even that issue is also considered by the Hon'ble Court and that said Jayaramulu, the husband of Lakshmidevmma has not preferred any appeal and thus the decree and the judgment in O.S. No.44/1983 binding on dt.17.01.1986 has become final and it is also Lakshmidevamma as she is claiming right through her husband and that even the said Lakshmidevamma has not filed any suit so for claiming a right in the properties are true and admitted.
e) The defendant No.2 submitted that the allegations made in paragraph
No.8 of the plaint that Chalapathi, the father of Anjineyulu and Jayaramulu had sold away his share of properties that had fallen to his share in O.S. No.12/1978 to various persons and that the said Chalapathi had sold his (half) ½ share in the suit survey number on western side i.e., an extent of Ac.8-24 cents of land to this defendant and this defendant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said half share of Chalapathi and that except the plaintiff and this defendant, nobody has any right, title or possession in the total extent of the suit survey number are true and admitted.
f) The defendant No.2 submitted that the allegations made in paragraph No.9 of the plant that the first defendant is a rich, powerful and influential person and he is also politically influenced and that the first defendant knowing well that
Lakshmidevamma W/o Jayaramulu has no right in the suit survey number has obtained a sale deed for 1/3rd share by showing boundaries for full extent of
Ac.16-45 cents under registered sale deed dt.10-12-2007 and that the first defendant influencing the Tahsildar, Penukonda sought for mutation of his name in the suit survey number under the registered sale deed dt.10-12-2007and that the
Tahsildar, Penukonda without considering the merits of the above said transactions simply ordered for mutation and that no detailed enquiry was conducted and that no copy of the order was communicated to the plaintiff and that after coming to know the said order, the plaintiff has applied for copies and that even that is not grant by the Tahsidlar, Penukodna due to influence of the first defendant and that the
APAN10000020201031 plaintiff has preferred an appeal before the R.D.O., Penukonda and the said appeal is pending are true and admitted. This defendant was also not served with any order by the Tahsildar, Penukonda though he submitted his explanation for the show cause notice issued by the Tahsildar, Penukonda. The Tahsildar, Penukonda acted in biased manner and he was totally influenced by the first defendant.
g) The defendant No.2 submitted that the allegations made in paragraph
No.10 of the plaint that Lakshmidevamma W/o Jayaramulu has no right, title or possession over any extent in the suit survey number and that she has no right to convey or sale the property and that the first defendant is also not entitle to any right over the suit survey number and that the alleged sale deed in favour of first defendant is a nominal and it is created for the purpose of litigation and that the first defendant has no right, title or possession in any partition of suit survey number are true and admitted.
h) The defendant No.2 submitted that the allegations made in paragraph
No.11 of the plaint that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of eastern portion in suit survey number with specific boundaries ie., East : Land of Jyotheppa and Ramanappa, West : Land of Dasari Rangappa (defendant No.2), North : Land of Thimmaiah, South : Land of Jyotheppa are true and admitted. This defendant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment Ac.8-24 cents in the suit Sy.No.686 with specific boundaries, East : Land of plaintiff, West : Land of Suleman, North : Lands of Thimmaiah and Ramappa and South : Land of Dasari Rangappa (defendant
No.2) in Sy.No.690 with absolute rights. The defendant No.1 and Lakshmdievamma
W/o Jayaramulu actively connived with each other and created the sale deed to make a false claim over the suit schedule survey number though Lakshmidevamma had no right, title or possession over the suit survey number.
i) The defendant No.2 submitted that the further allegations made in paragraph No.11 of the plaint that in view of sale deed dt.10-12-2007 the first defendant is openly threatening the plaintiff to trespass into the land of the plaintiff and that the first defendant has taken the sale deed for the alleged joint 1/3rd share
APAN10000020201032 in his sale deed dt. 10-12-2007 and that the remedy of the first defendant is to file a suit for partition and take separate land through court and that instead of doing so, the first defendant is trying to ocсuру the land of the plaintiff and the land of this defendant are true and admitted. The further allegations made in the same para that admittedly the plaintiffs 1/3rd share is not in dispute and that the dispute is only for 1/6th share i.e., the suit property more fully described in the suit property are not correct. The further allegations made in the same paragraph that to avoid complication, the present suit is filed for 1/6th share in the suit survey number and also alternatively mentioning in the schedule for an extent of Ac.2-74 cents which is equal to 1/6th joint share by showing the boundaries alternatively are not correct.
The further allegations made in the same paragraph that the first defendant has no manner of right, title or possession over the suit property and that the first defendant is a rich, powerful and influential person and that is trying to trespass into the suit property are true and admitted. The further allegations made in the same paragraph that this defendant is also added as a proper and necessary in the suit as he is purchaser of the half share of Chalapathi to avoid multiplicity of litigation are correct. The defendant No.2 submitted that the schedule given in the plaint is not correct and that there is no cause of action and the causes of action alleged in the plaint are false and denied. Hence, the defendant No.2 prayed this Court maybe pleased to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
6. a) After filing of written statement, the defendant No.2 died leaving behind him his wife and his son and that the defendant Nos.3 and 4 filed their additional written statement adopting the written statement of defendant No.2.
b) The defendant Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the allegations made in the plaint that one Sigichetla Chalapathi, resident of Eguvagadda, Penukonda town has two sons namely S.Anjneyulu and S.Jayaramulu and that they were the members of the joint family of which Chalapathi was the manager of the joint family and that
S.Jayaramulu has relinquished his share and executed a registered replenishment deed dt.12-06-1973 and that Chalapathi and his son Anjineyulu have became the
APAN10000020201033 absolute owners of the properties of joint family and that S.Anjineyulu S/o
Chalapathi has filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his half share in all the joint family properties against his father Chalapathi in O.S. No.12/1973 on the file of the Subordinate Judge Court, Ananthapuramu now it is Hon’ble Senior
Civil Judge, Penukonda and that the said suit was ended in compromise and
compromise decree was passed by the Hon'ble Court on 03-03-1978 and that total extent of the suit survey number is an extent of Ac.16-48 cents of land out of it
Ac.8-24 cents of land on eastern side was allotted to the share of Anjineyulu and that ever since the date of partition the said Anjineyulu was in possession and enjoyment of the said half share during his life time and after his death the plaintiff who is his son is in possession and enjoyment of the said property are true and admitted.
c) The defendant Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the allegations made in paragraph No.4 (a) that during pendency of the suit, the defendant No.2 died leaving behind him his wife and sons successors and that they are added as defendants 3 and 4.
d) The defendant Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the allegations made in paragraph No.5 of the plaint that one Lakshmidevanma of Challapathi village in
Somandepalli Mandal is the wife of Jayaramulu who is the son of Chalapathi and that said Lakshmidevamma has filed a suit against her husband Jayaramulu and
Chalapathi in O.S. No.138/1979 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Penukonda for maintenance and sought for charge over the alleged 1/3rd share of Jayaramulu in the suit survey number are true and admitted. The further allegations made in the same paragraph that Anjineyulu was not a party to the said suit in O.S.No.138/1979 and the said suit and judgment are not maintainable on Anjineyulu are not correct.
The further allegations made in the same paragraph that it appears on contest the said suit was decreed on 20-11-1981 by granting maintenance to the said
Lakshmidevamma and created charge over 1/3rd share in the suit survey number against Jayaramulu and Chalapathi and that as Anjineyulu was not a party to the
APAN10000020201034 said suit, the charge was created in the half share of Chalapathi that too 1/3rd share and that no suit is filed and charge is asked for against the half share of
Anjineyulu and that instead of asking a charge on 1/3rd share in Chalapathi's half share as if charge is asked for in the entire extent also is not binding on Anjineyulu and that the charge must be 1/3rd share in the half share of Chalapathi ie., on western half portion Ac.8-24 cents of land in the suit survey number are not correct.
e) The defendant Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the allegations made in paragraph No.6 of the plaint that though the said suit in O.S.No.138/1979 was decreed and charge a Lakshmidevamma never brought the charged property for sale for recovery of maintenance amount and that the period of limitation for execution of decree in O.S. No.138/1979 is only 12 years and that said
Lakshmidevamma has not executed the decree especially against the charged property in the suit survey number are true and admitted. The further allegations made in the same paragraph that except the decree for maintenance amount and charge for realization of amount, said Lakshmidevamma has no right over the 1/3rd right in the suit survey number and that Lakshmidevamma never in possession and enjoyment any share in the suit survey number are in the other properties fell to the share of Chalapathi in O.S. No.12/1978 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court,
Ananthapuramu and that thus said Lakshmideamma W/o Jayaramulu, resident of
Challapalli has no right to any portion of extent in the suit survey number are true and admitted.
f) The defendant Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the allegations made in paragraph No.7 of the plaint that after disposal of the suit O.S.No.138/1979,
Lakshmidevamma and her husband Jayaramulu have colluded together and filed a suit O.S. No.44/1983 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in all the family properties challenging the relinquishment deed, dt.12-06-1973 against his father Chalapathi and his brother Anjineyulu and others and that on contest the said suit O.S.
No.44/1983 was dismissed on contest on 17-01-1986 and that an issue was also
APAN10000020201035 framed in O.S.No.44/1983 as the relinquishment deed dt.12-6-1973 is true and valid or it is a sham and nominal and that even that issue is also considered by the
Hon'ble Court and that said Jayaramulu, the husband of Lakshmidevamma has not
preferred any appeal and that thus the decree and the judgment in O.S.
No.44/1983 dt.17-1-1986 has become final and it is also binding on
Lakshmidevamına as she is claiming right through her husband and that even the said Lakshmidevamma has not filed any suit so for claiming a right in the properties are true and admitted.
g) The defendant Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the allegations made in paragraph No.8 of the plaint that Chalapathi, the father of Anjineyulu and
Jayaramulu had sold away his share of properties that had fallen to his share in
O.S. No.12/1978 to various persons and that the said Chalapathi had sold his ½
(Half) share in the suit survey number on western side i.e., an extent of Ac.8-24 cents of land to the defendant No.2 and the defendant was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said half share of Chalapathi and that except the plaintiff and the defendant No.2, nobody has any right, title or possession in the total extent of the suit survey number are true and admitted.
h) The defendant Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the allegations made in paragraph No.9 of the plaint that the first defendant is a rich, powerful and influential person and he is also politically influenced and that the first defendant knowing well that Lakshmidevamma W/o Jayaramulu has no right in the suit survey number has obtained a sale deed for 1/3rd share by showing boundaries for full extent of Ac. 16-45 cents under regd. sale deed dt.10-12-2007 and that the first defendant influencing the Tahsildar, Penukonda sought for mutation of his name in the suit survey number under the regd. sale deed dt.10-12-2007 and that the
Tahsildar, Penukonda without considering the merits of the above said transactions simply ordered for mutation and that no detailed enquiry was conducted and that no copy of the order was communicated to the plaintiff and that after coming to know the said order, the plaintiff has applied for copies and that even that is not granted
APAN10000020201036 by the Tahsildar, Penukonda due to influence of the first defendant and that the plaintiff has preferred an appeal before the R.D.O., Penukonda and the said appeal is pending are true and admitted. The defendant No.2 was also not served with any order by the Tahsildar, Penukonda though he submitted his explanation for the show cause notice issued by the Tahsildar, Penukonda. The Tahsildar, Penukonda acted in biased manner and he was totally influenced by the first defendant.
i) The defendant Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the allegations made in paragraph No.10 of plaint that Lakshmidevamma W/o Jayaramulu has no right, title or possession over any extent in the suit survey number and that she has no right to convey or sell the property and that the first defendant is also not entitle to any right over the suit survey number and that the alleged sale deed in favour of first defendant is a nominal and it is created for the purpose of litigation and that the first defendant has no right, title or possession in any portion of suit survey number are true and admitted.
j) The defendant Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the allegations made in paragraph No.11 of the plaint that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of eastern portion in suit survey number with specific boundaries i.e., East : Land of
Jyotheppa and Ramanappa, West : Land of Dasari Rangappa (defendant No.2),
North : Land of Thimmaiah and South : Land of Jyotheppa are true and admitted.
The defendant No.2 was in exclusive possession and enjoyment Ac.8-24 cents in the suit Sy.No.686 with specific boundaries, East : Land of plaintiff, West : Land of
Suleman, North : Lands of Thimmaiah and Ramappa and South : Land of Dasari
Rangappa (defendant No.2) in Sy.No.690 with absolute rights. The defendant No.1 and Lakshmidevamma W/o Jayaramulu actively connived with each other and created the sale deed to make a false claim over the suit schedules survey number though Lakshmidevamma has no right, title or possession over the suit survey number.
k) The defendant Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the defendant No.2 died leaving behind him, his wife the defendant No.3 and his son the defendant No.4. After the
APAN10000020201037 death of defendant No.2, the defendants 3 and 4 succeeded the entire estate of the defendant No.2 including the suit schedule Sy.No.686 to an extent Ac.8-24 cents with specific boundaries: East : Land of plaintiff, West : Land of Suleman, North :
Lands of Thimmaiah and Ramappa, South : Land of Dasari Rangappa, the defendant No.2 and they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights.
l) The defendant Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the further allegations made in paragraph No.11 of the plaint that in view of sale deed dt.10-12-2007 the first defendant is openly threatening the plaintiff to trespass into the land of the plaintiff and that the first defendant has taken the sale deed for the alleged joint 1/3rd share in his sale deed, dt.10-12-2007 and that the remedy of the first defendant is to file a suit for partition and take separate land through court and that instead of doing so, the first defendant is trying to occupy the land of the plaintiff and the land of this defendant are true and admitted. The further allegations made in the same paragraph that admittedly the plaintiff's 1/3rd share is not in dispute and that the dispute is only for 1/6th share ie., the suit property more fully described in the suit property are not correct. The further allegations made in the same paragraph that the to avoid complication, the present suit is filed for 1/6th share in the suit survey number and also alternatively mentioning in the schedule for an extent of Ac.2-74 cents which is equal to 1/6th joint share by showing the boundaries alternatively are not correct. The further allegations made in the same paragraph that the first defendant has no manner of right, title or possession over the suit property and that the first defendant is a rich, powerful and influential person and that is trying to trespass into the suit property are true and admitted. The further allegations made in the same paragraph that this defendant is also added as a proper and necessary in the suit as he is purchaser of the half share of Chalapathi to avoid multiplicity of litigation are correct.
m) The defendant Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the schedule given in the plaint is not correct and that there is no cause of action and the causes of action alleged
APAN10000020201038 in the plaint are false and denied. The defendant Nos.3 and 4 prayed this Court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
7. Basing on the pleadings and documents, this Court framed the following issues and additional issues for trial.
ISSUES:
1) Whether the suit can be decreed as prayed for?
2) If so, To what relief?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES:
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration of title over the plaint schedule property?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of plaint
schedule property by removing fencing and shed laid by the defendants
during the pendency of suit by way of mandatory injunction?
5) Whether this suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages of Rs.25,000/- per annum till the removal of the fencing through the Court?
Evidence adduced on both sides :
8. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A12.
Ex.A1 – Certified copy of compromise petition in OS.No. 12/1978 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu dt. 01-03-1978.
Ex.A2 – Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No. 44/1983 dt. 17-01-1986 Ex.A3– Certified copy of Decree in O.S.No. 44/1983 dt. 17-01-1986.
Ex.A4 - Certified copy of Plaint in O.S.No. 44/1983.
Ex.A5 - Certified copy of written statement of 3rd defendant filed in
O.S.No.44/1983 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge's Court, Penukonda.
Ex.A6 – Certified copy of Written statement of 2nd defendant filed in
O.S.No.44/1983 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge's Court, Penukonda.
Ex.A7 – Registration extract of sale deed executed by Lakshmidevamma in favour of the 1" defendant dt. 10-12-2007.
APAN10000020201039 Ex.A8 – Office copy of notice issued to the 1" defendant and copy sent to
S.H.O., Penukonda, S.P., Anantapuramu and Hon'ble C.M., of Andhra
Pradesh 28-08-2019.
Ex.A9 – Reply notice got sent by D.1 dt. 06-09-2019 Ex.A10 – Acknowledgment given at Spandana Prajasamasyala Vedika dt.09.09.2019.
Ex.A11 – C.D. along with photos (Marked subject to objection by counsel for
D1 as there is no description for filing C.D. and photos in the Chief Affidavit.
Ex.A12 – Pattadar pass book of plaintiff (Marked at the time of cross examination of D.W.3).
9.On behalf of the defendants the 1st defendant is examined as DW-1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B40. One CH.Eswarappa is examined as D.W.2. 4th defendant is examined as D.W.3, through him Exs.B41 to B44 are marked.
Ex.B1 – Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No.138/1979 by the Hon’ble
Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda dt.19.03.1979.
Ex.B2 - Certified copy of decree in O.S.No.138/1979 by the Hon’ble Junior
Civil Judge, Penukonda dt.19.03.1979.
Ex.B3 – Certified copy of dismissal of First Appeal being A.S.No.8/1982 by the Hon’ble Subordinate Judge, Penukonda dt.25.09.1986.
Ex.B4- Certified copy of dismissal of Second Appeal being S.A.No.2/1987 by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh dt.21.06.2002.
Ex.B5- Certified copy of Orders passed in E.P.No.5/1987 in O.S.No.138/1979 by the Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda dt.03.02.1989.
Ex.B6- Certified copy of C.R.P. No.1312/1989 against the orders in
E.P.No.5/1987 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh
dt.16.06.1989.
Ex.B7- Certified copy of sale deed bearing No.4470/2007 dt.10.12.2007.
Ex.B8- Original Rectification deed bearing No.2254/2014 dt.30.10.2017.
Ex.B9- Certified copy of M.R.O. proceedings issued by the M.R.O.,
APAN10000020201040
Penukonda vide proceeding No. R.C.No.338/2008 for issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of D1 dt.27.05.2008.
Ex.B10- Certified copy of R.D.O. proceedings issued by the R.D.O.
Penukonda vide proceeding No.D.Dis.No.B/1409/2010 dt.09.06.2011.
Ex.B11- Adangal for Sy.No.686-2 for the fasili year 1421 issued by Deputy
Tahsildar dt.19.03.2018.
Ex.B12- Meeseva copy of Adangal for the Sy.No.686 for fasili year 1428 dt.28.07.2020.
Ex.B13- Meeseva copy of Adangal for the Sy.No.686 for fasili year 1429 dt.11.03.2020.
Ex.B14- Meeseva copy of Adangal for the Sy.No.686 for fasili year 1430 dt.28.07.2020.
Ex.B15- Certified copy of endorsement of Spandana issued by Tahsildar,
Penukonda dt.09.10.2019.
Ex.B16- Certified copy of report submitted to Sub-Collector, Penukonda issued by Tahsildar, Penukonda.
Ex.B17- Electricity demand notice for service No.307333130111 dt.10.11.2019.
Ex.B18- Electricity demand notice for service No.307333130111 dt.08.12.2019.
Ex.B19- EC for the Sy.No.686 dt.05.03.2008.
Ex.B20- EC for the Sy.No.686 dt.28.12.2020.
Ex.B21- True copy of report submitted to S.H.O., Penukonda by Kristappa (The counsel for the plaintiff raised objection that the report was preferred by
G.Kristappa but not by 1st defendant as such it cannot be marked. Hence the document is marked subject to objection).
Ex.B22- Certified copy of endorsement issued by the Tahsildar, Penukonda basing on the report of Revenue Inspector dt.24.01.2023.
Ex.B23- Pattadar pass book stands in the name of 1st defendant
APAN10000020201041 dt.28.05.2008.
Ex.B24- Pattadar pass book stands in the name of 1st defendant bearing
No.12B52T009000195.
Ex.B25- Adangal for Sy.No.686 issued by Tahsildar, Penukonda for the fasli year 1419 for calendar year 2009-2010.
Ex.B26- Adangal for Sy.No.686 issued by Tahsildar, Penukonda for the fasli year 1420 for calendar year 2010-2011.
Ex.B27- Adangal for Sy.No.686 issued by Tahsildar, Penukonda for the fasli year 1422 for calendar year 2012-2013.
Ex.B28- Adangal for Sy.No.686 issued by Tahsildar, Penukonda for the fasli year 1425 for calendar year 2015.
Ex.B29- Adangal for Sy.No.686 issued by Tahsildar, Penukonda for the fasli year 1426 for calendar year 2016.
Ex.B30- Adangal for Sy.No.686 issued by Tahsildar, Penukonda for the fasli year 1427 for calendar year 2017.
Ex.B31- Bank statement of D.W.1 for the period from 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2008.
Ex.B32- Bank statement of D.W.1 for the period from 01.01.2009 to 31.12.2009.
Ex.B33- Bank statement of D.W.1 for the period from 01.01.2010 to 31.12.2010.
Ex.B34- Bank statement of D.W.1 for the period from 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2011.
Ex.B35- Bank statement of D.W.1 for the period from 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2012.
Ex.B36- Bank statement of D.W.1 for the period from 01.01.2013 to 31.12.2013.
Ex.B37- Bank statement of D.W.1 for the period from 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014.
APAN10000020201042 Ex.B38- Bank statement of D.W.1 for the period from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016.
Ex.B39- Served copy of legal notice issued by Sri K.S.Rajasekhar, Advocate to Smt K.Jayakala, Advocate.
Ex.B40 – Office copy of reply notice issued by Smt K.Jayakala, Advocate to
Sri K.S.Rajasekhar.
Ex.B41 – Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Chalapathi in favour of D.Rangappa dt.05.09.1984.
Ex.B42 - Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Chalapathi in favour of D.Rangappa dt.19.02.1986.
Ex.B43 – Certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.117/2021.
Ex.B44 – Digital copy of 1-B (ROR) dt.15.04.2024 stands in the name of
D.W.3 in Khata No.200 of Penukonda Village for the lands in Sy.Nos.686, 689-1 and 690.
10) Heard on the both sides and this court have perused the material available on record and exhibits marked on both sides, so also given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the counsel and to the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and also written arguments and additional written arguments filed by the learned counsel for plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendant No1 and defendant Nos.3 and 4. This Court has also gone through the Judgments which are relied by the plaintiff 1) Kurella Naga
Druva Vudaya Bhaskara Rao Vs. Galla Janikamma @ Macharamma 2009 (3) ALD 416, 2) Rapuru Krishnaiah Vs. Konda Veera Raghavulu 2014 (3) ALD 628, A.P.
and 3) Hussain Ahmed Choudhury and others Vs. Habibur Rahman (Dead)
Through Lrs and others 2025 (4) ALT 54 Supreme Court. This Court has also gone through the Judgments which are relied by the defendant No.1 1) Moreshar S/o
Yadaorao Mahajan Vs. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (D) Thr. Lrs. And others Civil
Appeal Nos.5755-5756 of 2011 dt.27.09.2022 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,
2) Vaddeboyina Tulasamma Vs. Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi 1977 Law Suit (SC)
APAN10000020201043 139, 3) Devarapalli Malla Reddy (Died) and others Vs. Gadiyam Hanumayamma and others 2012 (2) ALT 149, 4) Bobbala Kondamma and others Vs. Siddireddi
Rami Reddy (died) per Lrs. 2014 (5) ALT 454 (D.B.), 5) Ponjurangam and others
Vs. Darshanala Swamy and others 2012 (2) ALT 607, 6) Kothapalli Venkateswara
Rao Vs. Myneni Raghavamma and another AIR 2019 Andhra Pradesh 89, 7) Hari
Lal Vs. Balvantia 1998 Law Suit (AII) 75, 8) Jupudy Pardha Sarathy Vs. Pentapati
Rama Krishna and Others 2015 Law Suit (SC) 1108 and 9) Bai Vajia V/s
Thakorbhai Chelabhai 1979 Law Suit (SC) 146 in his written arguments and 1) Smt
Gulwant Kaur & Another Vs. Mohinder Singh & Ors on 20.07.1987 AIR 1987 SC 2251, 2) Smt Gulwant Kaur & Another Vs. Mohinder Singh & Ors AIR 1991 SC 1581 = 1991 SCC 410, 3) Jagannathan Pillai Vs. Kunjithapadam Pillai & Ors on 21.04.1987 AIR 1987 1493, 4) Kallakuri Pattabhiramaswamy Vs. Kallkuri Kamaraju
Civil Appeal No.5389/2012 dt.21.11.2024, 5) Raghubar Singh & Ors Vs. Gulab
Singh & Ors on 14-07-1998 AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2401, 6) Smt Gulwant Kaur &
Another Vs. Mohinder Singh & Ors on 20.07.1987 AIR 2251, 7) Jagannathan Pillai
Vs. Kunjithapadam Pillai & Ors on 21.04.1987 AIR 1493, 8) Smt Smiriti Debbarma (D) Thr Lr. Vs. Sri Prabha Ranjan Debbarma 2023 (2) ALD 28 SC = AIR 2023 SC 379 in Civil Appeal No.878/2009, 9) Muni Devi @ Nathi Devi Vs. Rajendra @ Lallu
Lal (Dead) Thr Lrs Civil Appeal No.5894/2019 ALD 1 SC and 10) Karuppayee
Ammal Vs.Pasupathi Ammal AIR 2007 No.153 Hon’ble Madras High Court in his
additional written arguments and also gone through the Judgments which are relied
by the defendant Nos.3 and 4 Constance Rani Vs. Krishnaraj @ Natarajan (Died)
S.A. 2114 of 2002 Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
11. a) The plaintiff in order to establish his case got examined as P.W.1 and filing his affidavit in lieu of chief examination which is nothing but replica of plaint.
P.W.1 in his chief examination reiterated the contents of the plaint and deposed that he had filed this suit for declaration of right, title in his favour and for mandatory injunction and other reliefs against the defendants. P.W.1 deposed that one
Sigichetla Chalapathi resident of Eguvagadda of Penukonda town has two sons
APAN10000020201044 namely S.Anjineyulu and S.Jayaramulu and that they were the members of joint
Hindu family of which Chalapathi was the manager of the joint family. P.W.1 deposed that S.Jayaramulu has relinquished his share and executed a registered relinquishment deed dt:12-06-1973. Thus Chalapathi and his son Anjineyulu have become absolute owners of the properties of the joint family. P.W.1 deposed that
S.Anjineyulu S/o Chalapathi has filed a suit against his father Chalapathi for partition and separate possession of his (½) half share of all the joint family properties in O.S.12/1978 on the file of Sub-Ordinate Judge's Court, Anantapur now it is Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur. The said suit was ended in compromise and a decree was passed by the Hon'ble Court on 03-03-1978. P.W.1 deposed that The total extent of the suit survey number is an extent of Ac.16-48 cents of land out of it Ac.8-24 cents of land on Eastern side was allotted to the share of Anjineyulu. Ever since the date of purchase said Anjineyulu was in possession and enjoyment of the said share during his lifetime and after his death,
P.W.1 deposed that he is his son is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. P.W.1 deposed that the pattadar pass book is also issued by the
Tahsildar, Penukonda.
b) P.W.1 deposed that during the pendency of the suit the defendant No.2 died leaving behind him his wife and son as his successors. Hence they are added as defendants 3 and 4. P.W.1 deposed that one Lakshmidevamma of Challapalli
Village, Somandepalli Mandal is the wife of Jayaramulu who is the son of
Chalapathi and that the said Lakshmidevamma has filed a suit against her husband
Jayaramulu and Chalapathi in O.S.No.138/1979 on the file of Junior Civil Judge,
Penukonda for maintenance and sought for a charge over the alleged 1/3rd share of Jayaramulu in the suit survey number. P.W.1 deposed that Anjineyulu was not a party to the said suit in O.S.No.138/1979 and hence the said decree and judgment are not maintainable on Anjineyulu. It appears of contest, the said suit was decreed on 20-11-1989 by granting maintenance to the said Lakshmidevamma and created a charge over 1/3rd share in the suit survey number against Jayaramulu and
APAN10000020201045
Chalapathi. P.W.1 deposed that as Anineyulu was not a party to the suit, the charge was created in the 1/2 share of Chalapathi that to 1/3rd share. P.W.1 deposed that no suit is filed and charge is asked against the 1/2 share of
Anjineyulu. Instead of asking a charge on 1/3rd share in Chalapathi's % share as if charge is asked for in the entire extent also is not binding on Anjineyulu. P.W.1 deposed that the charge must be 1/3rd share and in the1/2 share of Chalapathi i.e.
on western half portion of Ac.8-24 cents of the suit survey number. P.W.1 deposed that though the said suit in O.S. No.138/1979 was decreed and a charge was created, said Lakshmidevamma never brought the charged property for sale for recovery of maintenance amount. P.W.1 deposed that the period of limitation for execution of the decree in O.S.No.138/1979 is only 12 years and that the said
Lakshmidevamma has not executed the decree especially against the charged property in the suit survey number. Except a decree for maintenance and a charge for realization of maintenance amount, said Lakshmidevamma has no right over the 1/3rd share in the suit survey number and that the said Lakshmidevamma never in possession and enjoyment of any share in the suit survey number or in the other properties fell to the share of Chalapathi in O.S.No.12/1979 on the file of Hon’ble
Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu. Thus, the said Lakshmidevamma W/o
Jayaramulu now resident of Challapalli, Somandepalli Mandal has no right in any portion of extent in the suit survey number.
c) P.W.1 deposed that after disposal of the suit in O.S.No.138/1979, said
Lakshmidevamma and her husband Jayaramulu colluded together and filed a suit in O.S.No.44/1983 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in all the family properties challenging the relinquishment deed dt.12-06-1973 against his father Chalapathi and his father
Anjineyulu and others. P.W.1 deposed that on contest, the said suit in
O.S.No.44/1983 was dismissed on 17-01-1986 and that an issue was also framed
in O.S.No.44/1983 as the relinquishment deed dt.12-06-1973 is true valid or is it a sham and a nominal. Even that issue is also considered by the Hon'ble Court.
APAN10000020201046
P.W.1 deposed that said Jayaramulu the husband of Lakshmidevamma has not preferred any appeal. Thus the decree and judgment in O.S.44/1983 dt.17-01-1986 has become final and it is also binding on Lakshmidevamma as she is claiming right through her husband. Even Lakshmidevamma has not filed any suit for claiming a right in the properties.
d) P.W.1 deposed that Chalapathi the father of Anjineyulu and Jayaramulu, has sold away his share of properties that had fallen to the share in O.S.No.12/1978 to various persons and that said Chalapathi had sold his share in the suit survey number on western side i.e., an extent of Ac.8-24 cents of land to the 2nd defendant herein and the 2nd defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the said 1/2 share of Chalapathi land. Except him and the 2nd defendant nobody has any right, title or possession in the total extent of the suit survey number.
e) P.W.1 deposed that the 1st defendant herein is a rich, powerful and influential person and he is also politically influenced and that the 1st defendant knowing well that Lakshmidevamma W/o Jayaramulu has no right in suit survey number has obtained a sale deed for 1/3rd share by showing boundaries for full extent of
Ac.16.45 cents under a registered sale deed dt.10-12-2007. P.W.1 deposed that the 1st defendant influencing the Tahsildar of Penukonda sought for mutation of his name in the suit survey number under the registered sale deed dt.10-12-207. P.W.1 deposed that the Tahsildar, Penukonda without considering the merits of the above said transaction simply ordered for mutation and not detailed enquiry was conducted and that no copy of the order was communicated to the plaintiff. P.W.1 deposed that after coming to know the said order he had applied for copies. Even that is not granted by the Tahsildar, Penukonda due to influence of the 1st defendant. But he had preferred an appeal before the R.D.O., Penukonda and the said appeal is pending.
f) P.W.1 deposed that as Lakshmidevamma W/o Jayaramulu has no right, title possession over any extent in the suit survey number. She has no right to convey or sell the property. The 1st defendant is also not entitled to any right over the suit
APAN10000020201047 survey number. The alleged sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant is a nominal and it is created for the purpose of litigation. Thus the 1st defendant has no right, title or possession in any portion of the suit survey number.
g) P.W.1 deposed that he has been in possession and enjoyment of eastern portion in the suit survey number with specific boundaries i.e., East - Land of
Jyothappa and Ramanappa, West - Land of Dasari Rangappa, North - Land of
Thimmaiah now in possession of P.Seshappa and South - Land of Jyothappa.
P.W.1 deposed that in view of the sale deed dt.10-12-2001, the 1st defendant is now openly threatening him to trespass into the land of him. As the 1st defendant has taken the sale deed for the alleged joint 1/3rd share in his sale deed dt.10.01.2007, the remedy of the 1st defendant is to file a suit for partition and separate possession through Court. Instead of doing so, the 1st defendant is trying to occupy his land and the land of the 2nd defendant. Admittedly my 1/3rd share is not in dispute. The dispute is only for 1/6th share i.e., the suit property more fully described in the suit property and now towards it is called as suit property. To avoid legal complication, the present suit is filed for 1/6th share in the suit survey number and also alternatively mentioning in the schedule for an extent of Ac.2-74 cents which is equal to 1/6th joint share by showing the boundaries alternatively. Thus the 1st defendant has no manner of right, title or possession over the suit property. As the 1st defendant is rich, powerful and influential person, now he is trying to trespass in to the suit property and also denying my title over the suit property.
P.W.1 deposed that the 2nd defendant is also added as proper and necessary party to the suit as he is the purchaser of the share of the Chalapathi, to avoid multiplicity of litigation. P.W.1 deposed that he is an agriculturist, poor and he had no support of anybody, hence he had no other go except to file this suit.
h) P.W.1 deposed that he had filed injunction petition along with suit in
I.A.No.470/2010 on the file of this Court against 1st defendant. This Hon'ble Court pleased to close the I.A. No.470/2010 that both parties must maintain status quo during the pendency of the suit and closed the said petition on 19.11.2012 against
APAN10000020201048 the order and decretal order in I.A. No.470/2010. P.W.1 deposed that the 1st defendant herein filed an appeal in C.M.A. No.8/2012 on the file of Hon’ble Senior
Civil Judge, Penukonda and that the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge allowed the C.M.A.
by directing this Hon'ble Court to pass speaking order on merits and allowed the
C.M.A. on 16-08-2013. The said I.A. is still pending. At no point of time the 1st defendant in the suit did not get ready in the said I.A. in view of change of government at present the 1st defendant through his men namely his father
Ramakrishna Reddy, his father-in-law Ranga Reddy and others influenced the local
S.H.O. showing the judgment in C.M.A. No.8/2012 that the matter is decided in their favour and with the help of local Station House Officer harassed him by calling him to the police station and asked him either to settle the dispute as they demand or give possession of the suit property to them and asked him to stand in the police station morning till evening. P.W.1 deposed that he got issued a notice through his
Advocate on 28.08.2019 to local Advocate for the 1st defendant Smt.Jayakala,
Advocate, Penukonda and to 1st defendant. I am not aware of the fact that the 1st defendant is in America. Only his father and Ranga Reddy and others have
Influenced the S.H.O., Penukonda. P.W.1 deposed that he got issued a notice to
S.H.O., Penukonda, S.P. of Police, Ananthapuramu and Chief Minister of Andhra
Pradesh.
i) P.W.1 deposed that nobody has taken any action. P.W.1 deposed that the
Station House Officer, Penukonda allowed the men of the 1st defendant P.W.1 deposed that to plough the suit property and also the equal share of defendants 2 to 4 in total Ac.5.52 cents through tractor and laid white slab fencing all along
Ac.5.52 cents on 2-10-2019 with the help of S.H.O., Penukonda. P.W.1 deposed that the vendor of 1st defendant has no manner of right, title or possession over the suit schedule property. The 1st defendant is also not in possession of the suit property. In view of KIA factory near Penukonda the value of the lands nearby
Penukonda have gone up abnormally. The 2nd defendant in the suit died pending suit and the defendants 3 and 4 are his legal heirs who were brought on record
APAN10000020201049 recently. The above suit is pending and posted for filing additional written statement if any on behalf of the defendants including 1st defendant in the suit. The 1st defendant without filing the Additional Written statement filed a memo through his
Advocate Smt. Jayakala to prolong the suit as for as possible. While the above suit is pending the S.H.O., Penukonda harassed him and stated that no suit is pending and the matter is decided in favour of the 1st defendant by showing the Judgment in
C.M.A. No.8/2012 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda. The 1st defendant has encroached the suit property on 02-10-2019 and also had fencing all along it. P.W.1 deposed that he has also raised a shed in the encroached portion of the land video is also available. In spite of protest made by him the men of the 1st defendant have encroached the suit property. P.W.1 deposed that he had no other go except to seek a relief of alternative possession of the suit property and also for relief of Mandatory Injunction to remove the fencing and also shed which was laid on 02-10-2019 through Court. P.W.1 deposed that he is also claiming damages for wrongful occupation of the suit property by 1st defendant with the help of S.H.O.,
Penukonda of Rs.25,000/- per annum till the disposal of the suit and also taking possession of the property through Court.
j) P.W.1 prayed this Court to pass a decree in his favour and against the defendants for declaring the right, title of him over the suit property and give possession of the suit property through Court after removal of the fencing and shed in the suit property constructed by 1st defendant on 02-09-2016 through Court by way of Mandatory injunction and give vacant possession of the suit property to him and Pass a decree in his favour and against the defendant No.1 directing the 1st defendant to remove the fencing and shed laid by him on 02-09-2019 at his cost and in case if he fails to do so permit him to do the same by way of mandatory injunction through Court at the cost of the 1st defendant and Pass a decree in his favour and against the 1st defendant for Rs.25,000/- per annum towards damages till the removal of the fencing through Court and also for the future damages till taking possession of the property through Court and award costs and grant such
APAN10000020201050 other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
12. a) Cross examination of P.W.1 states in his cross that the land in suit survey number is their ancestral property. P.W.1 deposed that his paternal grandfather's name is Chalapathi. P.W.1 deposed that the Chalapathi had two sons by name
Anjineyulu and Jayaramulu. P.W.1 deposed that he is the son of Anjineyulu. P.W.1 deposed that the wife of Anjineyulu by name Nagarathnamma who is his mother is alive. P.W.1 deposed that he had two sisters by name S.Shobharani and
S.Lavanya. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that his mother and his sisters are not parties to this suit. P.W.1 deposed that he had mentioned in his plaint and in his chief affidavit that he has got the plaint schedule property through his ancestors.
P.W.1 deposed that he had filed this suit for Ac.2.78 cents. P.W.1 deposed that he had mentioned the boundaries in his plaint to Ac.2.78 cents but not to Ac.16.48 cents. P.W.1 deposed that his father acquired 1/2 share in Ac.16.48 cents through his grand father by way of decree. P.W.1 deposed that Jayaramulu who is his paternal uncle is not a party to Ex.A.1, the witness adds that on 12.06.1973
Jayaramulu executed relinquishment deed in favour of his grandfather.
b) P.W.1 deposed that he had filed the relinquishment deed before this court.
P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he had not filed relinquishment deed and that he is deposing false. P.W.1 deposed that Lakshmidevamma is the wife of
Jayaramulu and that even today she is alive. P.W.1 deposed that
Lakshmidevamma had filed maintenance case in O.S.No.138/1979 on the file of
Junior Civil Judge's Court, Penukonda against Jayaramulu and his grandfather and that in that suit charge was created for 1/3rd share on suit Sy.No.686 and other properties. P.W.1 deposed that his grandfather preferred appeal against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.138/1979 before the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge's Court,
Penukonda in A.S.No.8/1982 and the same was dismissed and his grandfather preferred the matter to Hon'ble High Court in S.A. No. 2/1987, the witness adds that his father is not a party to the O.S.No.138/1979 and A.S.No.8/1982 and S.A.No.
APAN10000020201051 2/1987. P.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether A.S.No.2/1987 was dismissed in the year, 2002. P.W.1 deposed that the remaining extent of land excluding Ac.2.78 cents is in his possession. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that there are boundaries between Ac.5.48 cents and Ac.2.78 cents. P.W.1 deposed that his father got share of land towards the eastern side of out of Ac.16.48 cents.
P.W.1 deposed that he had filed this suit against Dasari Rangappa also. P.W.1 deposed that he had filed this suit against Dasari Rangappa as he purchased land to an extent of Ac.2.15 cents from his grandfather through registered sale deed.
P.W.1 deposed that based on Ex.A1 his father got mutated his name in revenue records and he was also given pass book. P.W.1 deposed that the Jayaramulu and his wife were not given notice by the revenue authorities while issuing pattadar pass book to his father as they were not having right over the land. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that this suit schedule property belongs to Defendant No.1. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he had no right over Ac.2.78 cents which is suit schedule property.
c) P.W.1 deposed that Lakshmidevamma filed execution petition in
E.P.No.5/1987 before this Court. When E.P.5/1987 in O.S.No.138/1979 is
confronted to the P.W.1 he admitted that the said E.P. is filed by Lakshmidevamma against Jayaramulu and Chalapathi.
d) P.W.1 deposed that the E.P. copy which is confronted to the P.W.1 is order copy in E.P.5/1987 in O.S.No.138/1979 and it is not neither the E.P. petition nor affidavit in E.P. petition.
e) When the order copy in E.P.5/1987 in O.S.No.138/1979 is confronted to the witness he stated that he do not know whether it is order copy in the above said
E.P., which was filed by Lakshmidevamma. The written statement and document filed by 1st defendant were not given to him as such he do not know the contents of his written statement and documents. P.W.1 deposed that he had seen the written statement and also the documents filed by 1st defendant through his counsel. P.W.1 deposed that the 1st defendant said to have purchased part of suit schedule
APAN10000020201052 property from Lakshmidevamma in the year, 2007. P.W.1 deposed that he came to know in the year, 2007 that 1st defendant purchased part of suit schedule property from Lakshmidevamma when he went to Sub-Registrar Office, Penukonda to take
E.C. in respect of plaint schedule property. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that after the purchase of property the 1st defendant applied for mutation of his name in the revenue records and at that time notice was sent to him by the Tahsildar,
Penukonda. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that on 27-05-2008 proceedings of
Tahsildar, Penukonda were served on him, defendant Nos.1 and 2 and V.R.O.,
Penukonda. P.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether Rangappa/Defendant
No.2 preferred appeal before R.D.O., Penukonda against the orders of Tahasildar,
Penukonda. P.W.1 deposed that he had narrated the contents to his counsel while preparing his chief affidavit. P.W.1 deposed that he had mentioned in his chief affidavit that the 1st defendant knowing that Lakshmidevamma W/o Jayaramulu has no right in the suit schedule survey number has obtained a sale deed for 1/3rd share by showing boundaries for full extent of Ac.16.45 cents under registered sale deed dt. 10.12.2007 and that the 1st defendant influencing the Tahasildar,
Penukonda sought for mutation of his name in the suit survey number under the registered sale deed dt.10.12.2007 and that the Tahasildar, Penukonda without considering the merit of the above said transaction simply ordered for mutation and not detailed enquiry was conducted and no copy of order was communicated to him and after coming to know the said order he had applied for copies and that even that is not granted by the Tahasildar, Penukonda due to influence of the 1st defendant and he had preferred an appeal before the R.D.O., Penukonda and the said appeal is pending.
f) P.W.1 deposed that he had not got mentioned in his chief affidavit that he had preferred appeal to the R.D.O., Penukonda against the orders of Tahasildar,
Penukonda. When order copy of R.D.O., Penukonda is confronted to the him, he admitted that the Rangappa/Defendant No.2 is the appellant is therein. When the order copy of R.D.O., Penukonda is confronted to the P.W.1 he stated that he do
APAN10000020201053 not know whether it is the order copy passed by R.D.O., Penukonda for the appeal preferred by Defendant No.2. The Defendant No.2 filed written statement in this case. P.W.1 admitted that he had not got read over the contents of written statement of Defendant No.2. P.W.1 deposed that he do not know from which year the name of Defendant No.1 is being reflected in revenue records pertaining to suit schedule survey number. P.W.1 deposed that he had not got issued any notices to
Tahasildar, Penukonda and R.D.O., Penukonda against the mutations in the name of Defendant No.1 prior to filing of this suit. P.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether the name of Defendant No.1 mutated in the revenue records in respect of suit schedule survey number as per the orders of Tahasildar, Penukonda vide
R.C.No.338/08, dt.27.05.2008. P.W.1 deposed that he had filed the entire
document pertaining to this case of Sy.No. 686 before this court apart from them he do not have any documents with him.
g) P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that his grandfather made objection against the claim of Lakshmidevamma that she is having right over the suit schedule survey number in E.P. No. 5/1987 and that said objection was overruled by this court.
P.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether his grandfather preferred in
C.R.P.No.1312/1989 against the orders of this court in E.P.No. 5/1987 dt.
13.02.1989. P.W.1 deposed that he do not know the dates of death of Chalapathi and Jayaramulu. P.W.1 deposed that his father died in the year 1998. P.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether he had not mentioned about E.P.No. 5/1987 in his chief affidavit.
h) P.W.1 deposed that his father Anjaneyulu died in the year, 1998. P.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether he had mentioned in his plaint that his father died in the year 1998 and that he had not mentioned in his plaint as to when his grandfather/Chalapathi died. P.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether vendor of
Defendant No.1 is alive. P.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether the vendor of
Defendant No.1 is alive and that she is residing at Challapalli village. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that even after knowing that the vendor of Defendant No.1 is alive
APAN10000020201054 he had not made her party to this suit. P.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether he had claimed any relief against Defendant No.2 in this suit. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that himself and Defendant No.2 colluded together and filed this suit in order to harass Defendant No.1. P.W.1 deposed that he had impleaded all the L.Rs of Defendant No.2 in this suit. P.W.1 deposed that the daughter of Defendant No.2 has died as such he had not impleaded her as L.R., to Defendant No.2. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that the deceased daughter of Defendant No.2 is having children. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that the Anjaneyulu and Jayaramulu filed collusive suits in O.S. No.12/1978 and O.S. No.44/1983 respectively in order to grab away property of Jayaramulu and the same were dismissed. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that in O.S.No.138/1979 confirming 1/3rd share to the
Lakshmidevamma the Court created charge for her share and that against the same Chalapathi preferred A.S.No.8/1982 and the same was dismissed confirming the Judgment of trial Court and the Chalapthi preferred S.A.No.2/1987 and the same was also dismissed confirming the judgment of trial court.
i) P.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether Lakshmidevamma filed E.P.
No.5/1987 for selling of her share of property for her maintenance. P.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether the Chalapathi preferred C.R.P.No. 1312/1989 against the orders in E.P.No.5/1987 and the said C.R.P. was dismissed. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that the Lakshmidevamma sold the property consequent to death of her husband, her father-in-law Chalapathi and Anjeneyulu to Defendant No.1 under sale deed for her maintenance. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that the name of
Defendant No.1 was mutated in the revenue records after his purchase of the property from Lakshmidevamma and that the possession was delivered to
Defendant No.1 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property, the witness adds that the V.R.O./Lakshminarayana Reddy who is maternal uncle of
Defendant No.1 mutated his name and created pass books in his name though the case was pending before this court. P.W.1 deposed that he had not received any notice from Tahsildar office while mutating the name of Naveen Kumar (Defendant
APAN10000020201055
No.1) in respect of plaint schedule property as such he do not know whether the
Tahsildar, Penukonda issued notice to him while mutating name of Defendant No.1 in respect of plaint schedule property. P.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether the appeal flied by Defendant No.2 before R.D.O., Penukonda in regard to mutation was dismissed. P.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether none preferred appeal on the orders of R.D.O., Penukonda.
j) P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that having received the notice from the
Tahsildar, Penukonda and even knowing the fact that Defendant No.2 preferred appeal to R.D.O., even then he is deposing false evidence. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that the Defendant No.1 had obtained loan from State Bank of India and that he is in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that since the date of purchase the Defendant No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and that the name of Defendant No.1 is in the revenue records till today in respect of plaint schedule property. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he had colluded with Defendant No.2 and filed this false suit even after knowing that the Defendant No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property since the date of his purchase. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that by filing compromising decree in O.S.No.12/1978 and
Judgment in O.S.No. 44/1983 and getting them exhibited he is misrepresenting this
Court. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that in the year 2019 the Defendant No.1 never dispossessed them from plaint schedule property, the witness adds that the
Defendant No.1 came along with J.C.B., and with the help of police he dispossessed them and beat him and his wife. It is not true to suggest that the
M.R.O., and R.D.O., conducted enquiry and gave report that Defendant No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property since the date of his purchase. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he know that the 1/3rd share of
Jayaramulu was charged in favour of Lakshmidevamma and that knowing the said fact he is deposing false evidence. P.W.1 deposed that he had filed petition before this court for restoration of his possession over the plaint schedule property, the
APAN10000020201056 witness adds that he had sent requisition letters to the Chief Minister of Andhra
Pradesh State, Amaravathi and to the Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuramu regarding their dispossession from the plaint schedule property by Defendant No.1.
P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he had not filed any petition for restoration of his possession and that he is deposing false evidence.
k) P.W.1 deposed that he had filed this suit against Naveen Kumar and Dasari
Rangappa. P.W.1 deposed that Dasari Rangappa died during pendency of this case. P.W.1 deposed that the Dasari Rangappa Defendant No.2 engaged counsel and filed his written statement in this case. P.W.1 deposed that his junior paternal uncle Jayaramulu filed O.S.No.44/1983. P.W.1 deposed that he do not know against whom Jayaramulu filed O.S.No.44/1983. P.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether Lakshmidevamma is party to O.S.No.44/1983. P.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether his father Anjineyulu is party to O.S.No.44/1983. P.W.1 deposed that he had not seen Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.6 as such he do not know the contents of them. P.W.1 deposed that he can identify signature of his father
S. Anjineyulu. When Ex.A.6 is confronted to the P.W.1, he denied the signatures of deponent/2nd defendant therein are of his father S.Anjineyulu. P.W.1 deposed that the Jayaramulu executed relinquishment deed in favour of Chalapathi. P.W.1 deposed that the original relinquishment deed is with him. P.W.1 deposed that the
Jayaramulu executed relinquishment deed stating that his health is not in good condition and that he is selling his share of property to his father by receiving
Rs.5,500/-.
l) P.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether the Hon’ble High Court of
A.P., in C.R.P.No.1312/1989 held that the said relinquishment deed is false document and it is created by Jayaramulu and Chalapathi in order to avoid payment of maintenance to Lakshmidevamma W/o Jayaramulu as awarded in
OS.No.138/1979. P.W.1 deposed that he had good terms with his mother and
sisters Shobha and Lavanya. P.W.1 deposed that his mother and his two sisters know about this case in the year 2010 itself. P.W.1 deposed that there is his name
APAN10000020201057 to show his right and possession over the plaint schedule property in the documents exhibited on his behalf. P.W.1 deposed that the document of combined statement, dt.14.09.2019 of him and Naveen Kumar shows his right and possession over the plaint schedule property. P.W.1 deposed that the Defendant
No.1 was not in Penukonda in the year, 2019. P.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether there is signature of Defendant No.1 in combined statement, dt.14.09.2019 of him and Naveen Kumar. P.W.1 deposed that no one conveyed the plaint schedule property to him as his grandfather and his father died and that the plaint schedule property belongs to him as he is their successor.
m) P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he is not only the legal heir of
Chalapathi, Anjineyulu and Jayaramulu. P.W.1 deposed that he had made an application before this Court in the year, 2019 stating that Defendant No.1 interfered into the plaint schedule property and disturbed his possession. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that with the influence of political leaders and police he had tried to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of Defendant No.1 over his property. P.W.1 deposed that the court was on holiday as on date of Ex.A9 as such he could not prefer any application before this Court against Defendant No.1 for disturbing his possession over the plaint schedule property. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he had not filed any document before this court to show that he is in the possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property prior to filing of the suit, as on the date of filing of the suit and even at present.
n) P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that since 2007 from the date of purchase the Defendant No.1 has been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and that his name is mutated in the revenue records in the year 2008 and that he had obtained loans from various banks in respect of plaint schedule property. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he is not in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that the people of Defendant No.1 never tried to dispossess him from plaint schedule property in the year, 2019. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that as the KIA factory is
APAN10000020201058 established the Defendant No.1 fenced his property. P.W.1 deposed that the
Defendant No.1 purchased Ac.2-78 cents in Sy. No.686 from Lakshmidevamma
W/o Jayaramulu. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that the Defendant No.1 purchased Ac.5-48 cents in Sy. No.686 and that he is deposing false evidence.
P.W.1 deposed that he do not know the orders of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., in regard to appeal of O.S.No.138/1979. When Ex.A.7 is confronted to the P.W.1, he admitted that Ac.5-48 cents in Sy. No.686 is mentioned in said document.
o) P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that his father is not having any right over the 1/3rd share of Jayaramulu. P.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether charge of 1/3rd share is created in favour of Lakshmidevamma in O.S.No. 138/1979. P.W.1 deposed that he know the contents of his plaint and chief affidavit. P.W.1 deposed he had not admitted in his plaint and chief affidavit that charge of 1/3rd share is created in favour of Lakshmidevamma. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that the
Defendant No.1 is in possession and enjoyment to the extent of his property and that he never encroached into the property of others. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that the Lakshmidevamma is having right to sell away the property.
P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that the boundaries to the plaint schedule property in his chief affidavit are not correct. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that on 02-10- 2019 the Defendant No.1 never encroached into the plaint schedule property and that he had not raised any fencing and shed in the plaint schedule property. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that as Defendant No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of his own property as such he is not liable to pay Rs.25,000/- p.a., to him as compensation. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he had falsely stated that
Defendant No.1 encroached into his land in the year 2019 and that with his false statements and documents he is running this case.P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that without having any documents in his name in respect of plaint schedule property he is harassing the Defendant No.1 since 2010.
p) P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he had laid house plots and sold the said plots in the property acquired by him through his father, the P.W.1 adds that he
APAN10000020201059 acquired Ac.8-24 cents from his father. P.W.1 deposed that he had laid house plots and sold Ac.2-00 cents of land as house plots in the said Ac.8-24 cents. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he had acquired only Ac.5-48 cents through his father but not Ac.8-24 cents. P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he had not filed any record before this court to show that he had acquired Ac.8-24 cents from his father.
P.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he is not having right over the property of
Defendant No.1 and that he is deposing false evidence.
q) In the cross examination by the learned counsel for Defendant Nos.2 to 4,
P.W.1 deposed that Anjineyulu and Jayaramulu are sons of Chalapathi. P.W.1 deposed that Jayaramulu executed registered relinquishment deed in favour of
Chalapathi and Anjineyulu relinquishing his right over the plaint schedule property.
P.W.1 deposed that Anjineyulu filed suit for partition vide OS.No.12/1978 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ananthapuramu against Chalapathi and the said suit was compromised and compromise decree was passed on 03-03-1978. P.W.1 deposed that as per the said compromise decree 1/2 share I.e., Ac.8-24 cents fell to
Chalapathi and another 1/2 share I.e., Ac.8-24 cents fell to Anjineyulu. P.W.1 deposed that Chalapathi sold property from his 1/2 share to Dasari
Rangappa/Defendant No.2. P.W.1 deposed that Defendant No.2 till his death and after his death Defendant No.3 and Defendant No.4 have been in possession and enjoyment of their property. P.W.1 deposed that Lakshmidevamma W/o
Jayaramulu filed suit for partition vide O.S.No.44/1983 on the file of Hon’ble Senior
Civil Judge's Court, Penukonda and the same was dismissed.
r) P.W.1 deposed that neither Lakshmidevamma nor Jayaramulu appealed against the dismissal of O.S.No.44/1983. P.W.1 deposed that Chalapathi sold property to Defendant No.2 after Court declaring that the Lakshmidevamma and
Jayaramulu are not having any right over the property mentioned in O.S.No.
44/1983. P.W.1 deposed that there is land of Dasari Rangappa to the west of plaint schedule property which was the share of Chalapathi. P.W.1 deposed that after execution of sale deed by Chalapathi in favour of Defendant No.2 no one
APAN10000020201060 challenged it to make it null and void. P.W.1 deposed that no one are in possession and enjoyment of property purchased by Defendant No.2 except deceased
Defendant No.2 and after him Defendant No.3 and Defendant No.4. P.W.1 deposed that himself, Lakshmidevamma, Jayaramulu. Anjineyulu and Defendant No.1 are not having any right and title over the property of Defendant No.2.
13) a) Chief examination of D.W.1 states in his chief that originally O.S.
No.216/2010 is filed for the relief of Declaration of right of title and for Permanent
Injunction against the defendant No.1 & Defendant No.2 i.e. Dasari Rangappa.
D.W.1 deposed that he had filed his written statement dated 20.03.2012 and Dasari
Rangappa, Defendant No.2 filed his written statement on 21-8-2012, vide C.F.R.
No.2485, through his Counsel G.Ramesh Reddy. D.W.1 deposed that pending the suit amendment petition was filed by the plaintiff with a prayer Recovery of a possession and Mandatory Injunction as it if plaintiff is dispossessed in the year
September 2019 and that all the contents of the plaint is incorrect and false and no relief can be granted by the Hon'ble Court.
b) D.W.1 deposed that he had purchased suit schedule property and adjacent part of agricultural land total an extent of Ac.5-18 cents, situated at Penukonda
Village & Mandal, Anantapur District, presently Sri Satya Sai District, through registered sale deed bearing No.4470/2007, dt.10-12-2007 for sale consideration of
Rs.2,00,000/- and that he came into the possession of suit schedule property as on the date of sale deed bearing No.4470/2007. D.W.1 deposed that his vendor
Singichetla Laxmidevamma W/o. S.Jayaramulu (paternal aunt of plaintiff).
APAN10000020201061
D.W.1 deposed that his vendor family pedigree is as follows
Hanumautha Rayudu (Dead)
Singichetla Chalapathi (Died on 28.02.1999)
S.Jayaramulu (Died 1988) = S.Anjineyulu (Died 1998) S.Lakshmidevamma (Wife) = S.Nagarathnamma (Wife) (Defendant No.1’s vendor)
S.Lakshmi Prasad (Son) ShobhaLavanya (Plaintiff)(Daughter)(Daughter)
c) D.W.1 deposed that indisputably S.Lakshmidevamma W/o. Jayaramulu, his vendor filed O.S. No.138/1979 and sought for Maintenance and prayed for create a charge 1/3rd share in the entire properties of late S.Chalapathi, as Smt.
Laxmidevamma, husband (Jayaramulu) having 1/3rd share in the following properties mentioned in the schedule in O.S.No.138/1979.
i. Land in Sy.No.686, Ac.16-45cents. (Present the suit schedule Sy.No.686) ii.. Land in Sy.No. 444, Extent Ac.07-0O cents.
iii. House bearing No.7/28.
iv. House site bearing D.No.7/175-A.
v. House with D.No.1/28-1.
vi. Term deposit in cash Rs.10,000/- S.B.I., Penukonda.
vii. Special Term deposit for Rs.10,000/- S.B.I., Penukonda.
viii. Fixed Deposit for Rs.10,000/-, Ananthapur District Co-operative Central Bank.
APAN10000020201062
d) D.W.1 deposed that O.S. No.138/1979 was decreed on merits against the
Chalapathi and Jayaramulu. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree Chalapthi preferred appeal suit A.S. No.8/1982 and Second Appeal No.2/1987 before the
Hon’ble High Court of A.P., against his vendor Smt. Lakshmidevamma were
dismissed and the trial court judgment in O.S. No.138/79 became final. D.W.1 deposed that he had filed the above Judgment and Decree may be marked as
Exhibits B1 to B 4.
e) D.W.1 deposed that to avoid the payment of maintenance, S.Anjineyulu father of the plaintiff's herein filed suit O.S.No.12/1971 against the S.Chalapathi and his wife Gundamma (father and mother of S.Anjineyulu) without impleading
S.Jayaramulu and Smt. Laxmidevamma and obtained a Collusive Compromise
Decree for Partition and Separate Possession. D.W.1 deposed that since,
S.Jayaramulu and S.Laxmidevamma are not parties to the above suit and
Compromise Decree as such the Judgment and Decree is not binding on them.
D.W.1 deposed that the 1/3rd share of Jayaramulu, his wife Smt Laxmidevamma obtained charge in O.S.No.138/1979 and it is became final. D.W.1 deposed that as per the above judgment any alienations and compromise decree in between
Chalapathi and others are no way helpful to plaintiff and that said to have been done by S.Chaplapathi in favor of Dasari Rangappa or alleged Compromise Decree is no way helpful to plaintiff. D.W.1 deposed that the allegation of Jayaramulu executed a Relinquishment deed in favor of S.Chalapathi is not binding on the
Lakshmidevamma as per Judgment of O.S. No.138/1979. D.W.1 deposed that the legality of relinquishment deed and Compromised decree passed in O.S.
No.12/1978 was elaborately discussed in appeal suit A.S. No.8/1982 filed by
Chalapthi before the Hon'ble Subordinate Judge at Penukonda and the said
Judgment & Decree of lower Court became final as the A.S. No.8/1982 and the
Second appeal preferred S.A. No.2/1987 were dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 21-06-2002.
APAN10000020201063
f) D.W.1 deposed that his vendor Lakshmidevamma filed E.P. No.5/1985 against Chalapathi and Jayaramulu, pending the E.P., Jayaraınulu died. Aggrieved by the orders passed in E.P., S.Chalapathi filed C.R.P. No.1312/1989 before the
Hon'ble High Court of A.P., and same was dismissed on 06-06-1989. The above
E.P. order and C.R.P. orders are marked as Exhibits B5 & B6. Therefore, the charge already created in O.S. No.138/1979 is in existence and that 1/3rd share land in Sy. No.686 Ac.5.48 cents out of Ac.16-48 cents, of Jayaramulu is succeeded by Smt. Laxmidevamma i.e., his vendor and he had purchased the same.
g) D.W.1 deposed that there was collusive suit got filed by S.Chalapathi and
S.Jayaramulu filed Partition and Separate Possession suit O.S. No.44/1983 without impleading Smt.Laxmidevamma. D.W.1 deposed that in the year 1983,
Lakshmidevamma got vested interest in the form of creating a charge by the competent Court in O.S. No.138/1979. Therefore the Judgment in O.S. No.44/1983 is not binding on his vendor Laksmidevamma. The sale deed No. 4470/2007,
Exhibit A7 is in his favor is true and valid genuine and acted upon.
h) D.W.1 deposed that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the date of his purchase to the knowledge of plaintiff and defendant
No.2, Dasari Rangappa and others as it is registered sale deed. D.W.1 deposed that the registered sale deed and Rectification deed may be marked as Exhibits B7 & B8. In continuation the above sale deed he got mutation proceedings before the competent authority i.e., M.R.O., Penukonda, by giving notice to the effected persons. D.W.1 deposed that by the time of his purchase S.Jayaramulu and
S.Chalapthi were died. D.W.1 deposed that there was no other persons after disposal of the C.R.P. for the payment of maintenance amount to Laxmidevamma.
D.W.1 deposed that for her livelihood and she sold Ac.5-48 cents to him this suit schedule property and subject matter of O.S. No.117/2021 situated at Penukonda for sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- lakhs. D.W.1 deposed that on the death of her husband and father in-law, 1/3rd share property became her exclusive property
APAN10000020201064 and absolute owner and enjoyment of Ac.5-48 cents and she has absolute right to sell it. D.W.1 deposed that he had purchased the said property, through registered sale deed in due process of law legally and he became the absolute owner. D.W.1 deposed that he is the bonafide purchaser of suit schedule property.
i) D.W.1 deposed that he had purchased through registered sale deed
No.4470/2007 an extent of Ac.5-48 cents in Sy. No.686 situated at Penukonda, including this suit schedule property and also including the property in O.S.
No.117/2021 pending on the file of the Hon'ble Prl. Junior Civil judge, at
Penukonda. D.W.1 deposed that the notices were given by the then Tahsildar,
Penukonda at the time of his name mutation in the Revenue record same as may be marked Exhibits B9 to B12. Aggrieved by the said mutation proceedings Dasari
Rangappa, Defendant No.2 herein filed appeal before R.D.O., Penukonda, vide file
No.D. Dis. No.1409/2018/B and R.D.O., Penukonda under ROR Act. D.W.1 deposed that the appellant authority under ROR Act, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders on 09-06-2011 by dismissing the appeal. D.W.1 deposed that the
R.D.O., proceedings became final and no revision is filed by Dasari Rangappa or any other party. D.W.1 deposed that his mutation proceedings are not challenged by plaintiff herein. But plaintiff wrongly pleaded in his plaint and also in his chief affidavit/PW-1 stating that he filed appeal before R.D.O., and same is pending (Page No. 3, para No. 9 last lines in plaint i.e. plaintiff has preferred appeal before
R.D.O., and the same is pending). D.W.1 deposed that this contention is incorrect and false.
j) D.W.1 deposed that his name is mutated in the revenue records that is
Adangal pahanies from the years 2008-09 to till now. D.W.1 deposed that in pursuance of his sale deed and revenue proceedings, Pahanies for the years 2008- 2009 to 2020 are filed and may be marked as Exhibits B.13 to B.22. These pahanies/Revenue records is disclosing his patta, ownership and his possession over the suit schedule property without any interruption. D.W.1 deposed that he is
APAN10000020201065 cultivating the suit schedule property and obtained crop loan from State Bank of
India, Penukonda branch in account No.30446893606 and obtained crop loan.
k) D.W.1 deposed that during life time of S.Anjanayulu, plaintiffs father and
Dasari Rangappa, defendant No.2 (predecessor in interest) did not challenge of his sale deed, possession and enjoyment including registered sale deed No.4470/2007 and Rectification deed No.2254/2014. D.W.1 deposed that they have not challenged charge created in favor of S.Laxmidevamma of 1/3rd share in O.S.
No.138/1979 in Sy. No.686. D.W.1 deposed that hence she became absolute owner after death of S.Chaalaptahi and Jayaramulu.
l) D.W.1 deposed that this suit O.S.No.216/2010 and O.S.No.117/2021 filed by
Legal heirs of Dasari Rangappa i.e., (Defendant Nos.3 & 4 herein) are third round litigations filed by the plaintiff and Defendant No.2 (Dasari Rangappa) legal heirs in order to harass him and his vendor. D.W.1 deposed that in this 3rd round of litigation plaintiffs without impleading his vendor i.e., Laxmidevamma paternal aunt of P.W-1/Laxmiprasad, without impleading all legal heirs of Anjanayulu, i.e., Smt
Nagaratnamm (wife), Shoba (daughter) and Lavanya (daughter) and also not impleading all the legal heirs of Dasari Rangappa, i.e. Smt. Chandramma, wife,
Thirumalesh son, and Smt. Venkatalakshmi daughter as legal heirs. D.W.1 deposed that the suit is not maintainable without impleading all legal heirs for necessary parties suit. Further not challenged his sale deeds No.4470/2007 and
Rectification deed No.2254/2014.
m) D.W.1 deposed that the suit is not maintainable for Declaration and
Injunction as originally filed and in the present form Declaration, recovery of possession and Mandatory Injunction is liable to be dismissed with costs of
Rs.5,00,000/-. D.W.1 deposed that the allegation of the plaintiff was dispossessed by him or his supporters or henchmen on 02-09-2019 as per amended plaint is not correct and it is false. D.W.1 deposed that the plaintiff contention is incorrect and his claim is barred by limitation as per his legal advise.
APAN10000020201066
n) D.W.1 deposed that the plaintiff suppressed facts and tried to occupy his property with political and police influence and that all the authorities including electricity department confirmed his ownership and his possession after enquiry from the date of his purchase. D.W.1 deposed that the development work i.e., fencing and digging bore well and plantation are done by him during the changing of regular crops to horticulture. D.W.1 deposed that he had invested Rs.35,00,000/- for development. D.W.1 deposed that the plaintiff did not file any application before this Hon'ble Court though this suit is pending. D.W.1 deposed that the plaintiff is misleading the Hon'ble Court without impleading all necessary parties. D.W.1 deposed that for all the reasons stated above the suit O.S.No.216/2010 is liable to be dismissed with costs of Rs.5,00,000/-. D.W.1 deposed that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief and that the suit schedule is incorrect and false without specify exact extent in Sy. No.686 and correct boundaries.
14. a) Cross examination of D.W.1 states in his cross that he has been working as Software Engineer in U.S.A., since 2015 to till date and prior to that he was working as Software Engineer at Hyderabad from 2005 to 2015. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he is financially well off and that the D.W.1 adds that his father is a farmer. D.W.1 deposed that after joining into his job he started pay income tax. D.W.1 deposed that apart from cultivation his father was not doing other work. D.W.1 deposed that he had not shown the plaint schedule property amount in his income tax returns. D.W.1 deposed that he had shown the plaint schedule property amount in his income tax returns and that he has not submitted that financial year I.T. returns documents before this Court. D.W.1 deposed that prior to purchasing the plaint schedule property his vendor S.Lakshmidevamma showed him the maintenance suit O.S.No.138/1979 document to him and that he took the said document and shown it to lawyer Sri K.S. Rajasekhar who is residing adjacent to his house for legal opinion and that he have seen the document and told him that he can purchase the plaint schedule property. D.W.1 deposed that Sri
K.S. Rajasekhar did not give any written legal opinion to him. D.W.1 deposed that
APAN10000020201067 he do not remember door number of his house as it is changed now. D.W.1 deposed that he cannot say the boundaries to his house which is adjacent to his house of Sri K.S.Rajasekhar. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he had not shown document of O.S.No.138/1979 to Sri K.S. Rajasekhar.
b) D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that Sri K.S.Rajasekhar did not give any legal opinion to him. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he is deposing false evidence for the purpose of this case by blaming Sri K.S.Rajasekhar. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that the plaintiff's father Anjaneyulu was not party to O.S.No.
138/1979. D.W.1 deposed that O.S.No.138/1979 is filed by Lakshmidevamma (his vendor) against her father-in-law. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that
Lakshmidevamma filed O.S.No.138/1979 against her father-in-law and her husband for 1/3rd in 1/2 share of her father-in-law. D.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether Jayaramulu executed relinquishment deed in favour of his father
Chalapathi. D.W.1 deposed that the Jayaramulu and Anjaneyulu are only sons to
Chalapathi. D.W.1 deposed that Anjaneyulu filed a suit in OS.No.12/1978 on the file of Hon’ble Sub-Ordinate Judge's Court, Ananthapuramu against his father for half share, the witness adds that his vendor is not party to that suit. D.W.1 deposed that in O.S.No.12/1978 Anjaneyulu and his father compromised the said suit and accordingly compromised decree was passed. D.W.1 deposed that the total extent of suit schedule survey number 686 is Ac.16-45 cents. D.W.1 deposed that as per compromise decree the Anjaneyulu gets half share in Ac.16-45 cents and the other half share fell to Chalapathi.
c) D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that as per the compromise decree the
Anjaneyulu got eastern side property and Chalapathi got western side property.
D.W.1 deposed that he know to read and write Telugu. D.W.1 deposed that as per
Ex.A1 1/2 share in plaint schedule survey number i.e., Ac.8-34 cents out of Ac16- 45 cents towards the eastern side fell to the share of father of plaintiff, the D.W.1 adds that in OS.No.138/1979 the Court has discussed about O.S.No.12/1978 and decreed maintenance to his vendor to an extent of 1/3rd share out of Ac.16-45
APAN10000020201068 cents. D.W.1 deposed that as per Ex.A1 the boundaries are mentioned in Ex.A1 itself to the property of Anjaneyulu. D.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether
Lakshmidevamma and her husband resided under one roof till the death of
Lakshmidevamma. D.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether Jayaramulu husband of Lakshmidevamma had filed O.S.No.44/1983 for partition and that on merits the said suit was dismissed. D.W.1 deposed that he know that the plaintiff mentioned about O.S.No.44/1983 in his plaint. D.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether Jayaramudu did not prefer an appeal against the dismissal of
O.S.No.44/1983. D.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether in O.S.No.44/1983
issue was framed with regard to compromise decree and relinquishment deed, the witness adds that since his vendor is not party to O.S.No.44/1983 as such he is not aware of it.
d) D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that his vendor have knowledge about
O.S.No.12/1978 and O.S.No.44/1983 and that she told him about the said two
suits, yet he is deposing false evidence. D.W.1 deposed that Lakshmidevamma
W/o Jayaramulu is still alive and that the Jayaramulu died in the year 1989. D.W.1 deposed that when the written statement filed by defendant No.1 is confronted to him, he admitted that there is no correction in the paragraph No.6. D.W.1 deposed that he gave instructions to prepare his written statement. D.W.1 deposed that he had signed on his written statement after going through it. D.W.1 deposed that he had got written in his written statement in paragraph No.6 that "the said
Lakshmidevamma having 1/2 half share in her father-in-law Chalapathi properties in items No.1 to 3 and 5 to 9 (of O.S.No.138/1979). D.W.1 deposed that till now there is no occasion araise to demand for partition." D.W.1 deposed that as per
Ex.B.2 there are 8 items in it out of which item Nos.1 to 5 are immovable properties and item Nos.6 to 8 are movable properties. D.W.1 deposed that the present suit schedule survey number is 686. D.W.1 deposed that as per Ex.B.2 the item No.1 property therein is Sy.No. 686 property. When Ex.A.1 is confronted to the D.W.1, he admitted that the item No.1 property therein is Sy.No. 686 property.
APAN10000020201069
e) D.W.1 deposed that the finding of the Court in O.S.No.138/1979 that the item Nos.1 and 4 has been given away to the first son of the 2nd defendant. D.W.1 deposed that the other properties are retained by defendant No.1. The plaintiff claimed half share in A and B schedule properties in that suit. D.W.1 deposed that it was a compromise decree. So deducting the properties that has been given to the 1st son the balance of the property is available for the 2nd defendant, the D.W.1 adds that he cannot understand in between lines read by the counsel and it will be explained by his counsel and that as per his knowledge the summary of Judgment in O.S.No.138/1979 says that out of Ac.16-45 cents 1/3rd share is granted in
Sy.No.586. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that the summary of Judgment in
O.S.No.138/1979 says that out of Ac.16-45 cents 1/3rd share is granted in Sy.No.
686 and that Lakshmidevamma was not given 1/3rd share in Sy.No. 686 in total extent of Ac.16-45 cents.
f) D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he had purchased land in the year 2007 by mentioning boundaries of whole ie., Ac.16-45 cents plaint schedule survey number property while purchasing land by him in the year 2007. D.W.1 deposed that he had purchased Ac.5-45 cents with specific boundaries, the witness adds that 1/3rd share of his vendor. D.W.1 deposed that he had filed document before this Court under which he had purchased Ac.5-45 cents of land. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he had not filed document under which he had purchased
Ac.5.45 cents with specific boundaries. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that in
Ex.A7 he had shown boundaries for total extent of Ac.16-45 cents. D.W.1 deposed that he had not filed partition suit for 1/3rd share which he had purchased under
Ex.A7. The D.W.1 adds that he continued possession after purchase from his vendor her Ac.5-45 cents of land. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that his vendor
Lakshmidevamma is not having 1/3rd share right in suit schedule survey number of total extent Ac.16-45 cents as such he do not derive any right. D.W.1 deposed that
before purchasing the property he had got conducted survey of the land by
Lakshmidevamma and that he was present at the time of survey of land. D.W.1
APAN10000020201070 deposed that he had not filed any document to show that Lakshmidevamma conducted survey of land prior to his purchase i.e., prior to 2007. D.W.1 deposed that the Lakshminarayana Reddy, V.R.O., Penukonda is his senior paternal uncle.
g) D.W.1 deposed that he had made requisition to Tahsildar for mutation of his name and that he conducted enquiry and got legal opinion from Government
Pleader and that he mutated his name and that in that process he do not know whether he would have contacted with Lakshminarayana Reddy, V.R.O. D.W.1 deposed that he had not filed legal opinion issued by Government Pleader before this court. D.W.1 deposed that the Tahsildar gave notices to Lakshmi
Prasad/plaintiff and Rangappa/Defendant No.2. D.W.1 deposed that he had attended to the enquiry conducted by Tahsildar. D.W.1 deposed that the plaintiff and defendant No.2 submitted all their documents to the Tahsildar at the time of enquiry and that on 05-04-2008 they have given objection to the Tahsildar through their Lawyer Sri G.Ramesh Reddy. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that the
Tahsildar did not issue any kind of notice to plaintiff and defendant No.2. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that with his influence and with the Lakshminarayana
Reddy he had got created the proceedings of Tahsildar without the knowledge of plaintiff and defendant No.2. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that the Tahsildar did not conduct any enquiry. D.W.1 deposed that at the time of filing of the suit plaintiff had also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction. D.W.1 deposed that after enquiry the Court ordered the parties to maintain status quo. D.W.1 deposed that he had preferred appeal vide C.M.A.No.8/2012 and that the status quo order was vacated and again the matter was remanded to this court to conduct fresh enquiry.
h) D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he had laid fencing to the plaint schedule property in 2019, the D.W.1 adds that he had laid fencing to the plaint schedule property in the year 2016. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he had laid fencing after disposal of above C.M.A. D.W.1 deposed that after laying fencing the plaintiff got issued legal notice to him and that he had also got issued reply
APAN10000020201071 notice through Smt. K.Jayakala, Adovcate, the D.W.1 adds that the plaintiff sent legal notice to him in the year 2020 i.e., after 4 years of laying fencing. D.W.1 deposed that he had filed legal notice of the year 2020 got issued by the plaintiff through Sri Late K.S.Rajasekhar, Advocate. D.W.1 deposed that he do not remember the date and month of the legal notice of the year 2020 got issued by plaintiff to him. D.W.1 deposed that he had got issued reply notice to Smt.
K.Jayakala, Advocate for only one time. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that in the year 2020 Sri Late K.S.Rajasekhar, Advocate did not issue any legal notice to him and that he had not got sent any reply notice through Smt. K.Jayakala, Advocate in the same year. D.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether the plaintiff made requisitions to police officials about the injustice to him after laying fencing. D.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether after disposal of C.M.A., the plaintiff made requisitions to Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and Police Officials about his high handed acts. D.W.1 deposed that the plaintiff had made requisition to Tahsildar in
Spandana Programme against him, the D.W.1 adds that he had received notice from the Tahsildar and that he had filed reply. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he had used his influence and took advantage of his senior paternal uncle and got to issue wrong proceedings. D.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether the plaintiff took videograph about the high handed act of him and his senior paternal uncle Lakhsminarayana Reddy and that the plaintiff filed C.D and photographs of the same before this court. D.W.1 deposed that as per Ex.B19 on 09.08.1983
Chalapathi mortgaged land to an extent of Ac.8-22 cents in plaint schedule survey number to P.A.C.S., Islapuram.
i) D.W.1 deposed that as per Ex.B.19 on 10-09-1984 the Chalapathi sold
Ac.5-49 cents of land in plaint schedule survey number to defendant No.2. D.W.1 deposed that as per Ex.B.19 on 21-02-1986 Chalapathi sold Ac.2-73 cents in the plaint schedule survey number to defendant No.2, the D.W.1 adds that his vendor got 1/3rd right in the total extent in plaint schedule survey number vide
O.S.No.138/1979 and that the defendants filed Appeal Suit No.08/1982 and the
APAN10000020201072 same was dismissed and that the again went to Hon’ble High Court of A.P., for second appeal in S.A.No.02/1987 and the same was also dismissed and that his vendor filed Execution Petition No.05/1987 for the plaint schedule property and the same was allowed and they went to the Hon’ble High Court for revision under
C.R.P.No.1312/1989 and the same was dismissed. D.W.1 deposed that the father of plaintiff is not party to all the proceedings of O.S.No.138/1979, A.S.No.3/1982,
S.A.No.2/1987, E.P.No.05/1987 and C.R.P.No.1312/1989. D.W.1 deposed that the adangals which are filed by him before this court are from the year 2009 to 2023.
D.W.1 deposed that Ex.B.25 and Ex.B.26 are hand written documents. D.W.1 deposed that as per Ex.B.28 the total extent of plaint schedule survey number is shown as Ac.13-70 cents, the D.W.1 adds that the Government had removed some part of extent and put it as in disputed land as some illegal constructions are being done in that land. D.W.1 deposed that he had filed document before this court to show that the Government had removed some part of extent and put it as in disputed land as some illegal constructions are being done in that land.
j) D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he had not filed any document which shows that the Government had removed some part of extent and put it as in disputed land as some illegal constructions are being done in that land. D.W.1 deposed that there is no date, month and year below the signatures of Tahsildar in
Ex.B.25 to Ex.B.30. D.W.1 deposed that in Ex.B.25 to Ex.B.30 the name of
Tirumalesh son of 2nd defendant stands to an extent of Ac.5-48 cents in the plaint schedule survey number. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that if at all the Tahsildar or the Deputy Tahsildar had issued adangals they would have definitely mentioned date, month and year in the said adangals. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that the adangals filed by him are created documents. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that the Ex B.8 rectification deed is created by him for the purpose of this suit. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he had executed Ex.B.8 deed by after thought and after filing of this suit and that it is false to state that he had mentioned Ac.5-48 cents in said deed. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he had created the two
APAN10000020201073 pattadar pass books with the influence of his senior paternal uncle. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that the bank statements filed by him are of subsequent to the filing of this suit. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that the contents of his chief affidavit and documents exhibited by him are all false. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that the plaintiff got amended the plaint as he had laid fencing in the plaint schedule property. D.W.1 deposed that the plaintiff sought prayer of mandatory injunction as he had laid fencing in the plaint schedule property. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that since 2005 he is working as a Software Engineer as such he is financially well off and that with his financial and political influence he had created documents for the purpose of this suit. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that till today he is not having right, possession and enjoyment over Ac.5-48 cents of land in plaint schedule survey number.
k) In the cross examination by the learned counsel for Defendant Nos.2 to 4,
D.W.1 deposed that he was settled in U.S.A., after purchase of plaint schedule property i.e., in the year 2015. D.W.1 deposed that he had directly purchase the plaint schedule property. D.W.1 deposed that he had obtained legal opinion prior to purchase of plaint schedule property but he had not filed document before this court of legal opinion obtained by him. D.W.1 deposed that he had verified about the title aspects like diglots and as to how his vendor got plaint schedule property at the time of his purchase. D.W.1 deposed that the Chalapathi is the diglot pattadar of the plaint schedule property. D.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether Ediga
Nagappa is diglot pattadar of plaint schedule property. D.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether the legal heirs of Ediga Nagappa, Aswarthaiah, Nanjaiah,
Subbarayudu, Anjineyulu, Pedda Anjineyulu and Chinna Anjineyulu have executed registered sale deed in favour of Sigichetla Hanumantharayudu vide document
No.814/1949,dt.30.11.1949. D.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether Sigichetla
Hanumantharayudu sold the plaint schedule property to Chalapathi in the year 1958. D.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether document No.853/1958, dt.11.06.1958 is a registered document. D.W.1 deposed that he do not know
APAN10000020201074 whether Chalapathi mortgaged plaint schedule property in P.A.C.S., Islapuram.
D.W.1 deposed that he came to know when he applied for mutation as they made objection on 05.04.2008 that Chalapathi sold his share in the plaint schedule survey number to 2nd defendant.
l) D.W.1 deposed that he had got read over Judgment in O.S.No.138/1979.
D.W.1 deposed that in O.S.No.138/1979 charge was created to his vendor. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that the sale procedure in E.P. was not completed. D.W.1 admitted that he had not filed any document like 1-B or pattadar pass book stands in the name of his vendor to show that she is the owner of plaint schedule property.
D.W.1 deposed that he had not filed any document stating that the purchase of plaint schedule property by the 2nd defendant was canceled under cancellation deed and any other suit proceedings. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that he had created Ex.B.25 to Ex.B.30 in collusion with revenue authorities. D.W.1 deposed that he had read the contents of his chief affidavit. D.W.1 deposed that he know the contents of his written statement. D.W.1 deposed that in his written statement he had mentioned that his vendor gets 1/2 share and in his chief affidavit he had mentioned that his vendor get 1/3rd share and that the correct one is that his vendor gets 1/3rd share. D.W.1 deposed that the boundaries mentioned in Ex.B.8 are for 1/3rd share of his vendor. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that the boundaries mentioned to the 1/3rd share of his vendor in O.S.No.138/1979 and the boundaries mentioned to the 1/3rd share of his vendor in Ex.B.8 are not one and the same.
m) D.W.1 deposed that he had foisted SC/ST case against the plaintiff, the
D.W.1 adds that the plaintiff misbehaved with his security person and he abused him with caste as such they filed SC/ST case against the plaintiff. D.W.1 deposed that his watchman Kristappa is the defacto complainant in the SC/ST case. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that many panchayats were conducted at police station and at different places with regard to SC/ST case.
n) D.W.1 deposed that he had applied for mutation and that the revenue
APAN10000020201075 authorities took care of there procedure. D.W.1 deposed that he had submitted
Encumbrance Certificate from 1925 to till the date of application for mutation to the revenue authorities at the time of mutation application. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that by suppressing the facts of diglot pattadar and the document pertaining to the year 1949 he had got created revenue documents, the respondents went an appeal to the R.D.O., Penukonda in 2011 and that the appeal was dismissed and no further was preferred.
o) D.W.1 deposed that another Civil Suit in OS.No.117/2021 is pending on the file of this Court. D.W.1 deposed that the sons of Dasari Rangappa defendant
No.2 filed O.S.No.117/2021 against him for declaration of title. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that the contents of his chief affidavit are false and that he is deposing false evidence. D.W.1 denied to the suggestion that the name of defendant No.2 and his legal heirs reflected in the revenue records to the plaint schedule property for the years 2015 and 2016 though he had purchased in the year 2007.
15. a) Chief examination of D.W.2 states in his chief that he is the third party to the suit and he know the facts of the case. D.W.2 deposed that he know the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and the suit property. D.W.2 deposed that defendant No.1 has purchased Ac.5-48 cents in Sy.No.686 of Penukonda village from
S.Lakshmidevamma in the year 2007. D.W.2 deposed that A.R.Naveen Kumar
Reddy is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.5-48 cents from the date of purchase.
D.W.2 deposed that he know the boundaries of the land purchased by the dependent No1. That is East : S.Anjaneyulu, West : D.Rangappa, North:
P.Srinivasulu Gopal Reddy & Lakshminarayana Reddy and South : D.Rangappa &
K.Venkatamma. D.W.2 deposed that Defendant No.1 used to raise groundnuts in the suit schedule property by engaging his cousin brother G.Kistappa from year 2008 continuously till 2021 and that during his cultivation he use to regularly visit his cousin brother G.Kistappa at the suit schedule property. D.W.2 deposed that on 21-11-2020 plaintiff Lakshmi Prasad came to suit schedule property made galata and abused his brother G.Kistappa by taking his caste "EMIRAA MADIGAA
APAN10000020201076
LANJAA KODAKAA" and demanding his brother to vacate the schedule property.
D.W.2 deposed that at that time, he is also present at suit schedule property. D.W.2 deposed that Police recorded his statement in the criminal case and at present there is a mango garden and Coconut trees in the suit schedule property. D.W.2 deposed that he had been visiting the suit property from the last 15 years and he know the facts personally.
b) Cross examination of D.W.2 states in his cross that the distance from
Challapalli to Perukonda is about 16 kms. D.W.2 deposed that he is not having any properties at Penukonda. D.W.2 deposed that he is not having any property in the surroundings of plaint schedule property. D.W.2 deposed that he was not witness to the registered sale deed executed in favour of 1st defendant in respect of plaint schedule property. D.W.2 deposed that he had not seen the sale deed under which the 1st defendant said to have purchased the plaint schedule property as such he do not know the contents of said sale deed. D.W.2 deposed that he do not know
V.R.O., Lakshminarayana Reddy is senior paternal uncle of 1st defendant. The
Lakshminarayana Reddy is son in law of their village. D.W.2 deposed that he do not know the native village of Lakshminarayana Reddy. D.W.2 deposed that he is doing cultivation. D.W.2 deposed that he had not filed any document before this court to show that he is having lands. D.W.2 deposed that he is not having any lands. The 1st defendant told him about the survey number and extent of the plaint schedule property. D.W.2 deposed that he know the 1st defendant as his brother use to cultivate groundnut crop in the plaint schedule property and used to visit the said property on Sundays. D.W.2 denied to the suggestions that his brother use to cultivate groundnut crop in the plaint schedule property and used to visit the said property on Sundays. D.W.2 denied to the suggestions that his brother never use to cultivate groundnut crop in the plaint schedule property and he never used to visit the said property on Sundays, the D.W.2 adds that his brother cultivated ground nut crop from 2008 to 2016.
c) D.W.2 deposed that he do not know to what extent of acres the plaintiff filed
APAN10000020201077 this suit. D.W.2 denied to the suggestions that he came to know the boundaries mentioned in his chief affidavit from 1st defendant, the D.W.2 adds that he know the boundaries. D.W.2 deposed that he know P.Sreenivasulu, Gopal Reddy and
Lakshminarayana Reddy who are north to the plaint schedule property. D.W.2 deposed that he do not know the above said Lakshminarayana Reddy is V.R.O.
D.W.2 deposed that he do not know how P.Sreenivasulu and Gopal Reddy got the land which is to the north of plaint schedule property. D.W.2 deposed that he do not know Anjineyulu as father of plaintiff who is to the east of plaint schedule property.
D.W.2 denied to the suggestions that the 1st defendant got foisted SC/ST case through Kristappa. D.W.2 deposed that he is not Dalit leader. D.W.2 denied to the suggestions that G.Kristappa is not his brother, the D.W.2 adds that G.Kristappa is son of his Junior Paternal uncle. D.W.2 deposed that his surname is Chinna
Harumanthappagari. D.W.2 denied to the suggestions that the G. Kristappa is not his brother and that claiming that G.Kristappa is his brother is false. D.W.2 deposed that he studied upto Degree. D.W.2 deposed that his chief affidavit is drafted by his counsel to his narration. D.W.2 denied to the suggestions that his chief affidavit is not drafted to his narration and that the contents of his chief affidavit are all false.
D.W.2 denied to the suggestions that his brother did not cultivate groundnut crop from 2008 to 2016. D.W.2 deposed that there is no document like lease deed to show that his brother cultivated groundnut crop in the plaint schedule property from 2008 to 2016. D.W.2 denied to the suggestions that the quarrel did not take place on 21-11-2020, the D.W.2 adds that F.I.R., was also register in regard to said quarrel.
d) D.W.2 denied to the suggestions that he is deposing false evidence at the instance of 1st defendant in order to cause troubles to plaintiff. D.W.2 denied to the suggestions that the 1st defendant is no way connected to the plaint schedule property. D.W.2 deposed that he do not know whether the 1st defendant is financially and politically well off. D.W.2 denied to the suggestions that the father of 1st defendant was doing real estate business. D.W.2 denied to the suggestions that
APAN10000020201078 he is having habit of deposing false evidences in the Court. D.W.2 denied to the suggestions that he do not know anything about this case.
e) In the cross examination by learned counsel for Defendant Nos.2 to 4,
D.W.2 deposed that he had got read over the contents of his chief affidavit. D.W.2 deposed that the 1st defendant is living at USA. D.W.2 deposed that the 1st defendant purchased plaint schedule property from Lakshmidevamma and that the
Lakshmidevamma is living at Challapalli Village. D.W.2 deposed that he was not present and he had not attested sale deed as a witness which is said to have executed by Lakshmidevamma in favour of defendant No.1. D.W.2 deposed that he do not know for how much of money the 1st defendant said to have purchased plaint schedule property from Lakshmidevamma but he know that the 1st defendant purchased plaint schedule property from Lakshmidevarnma. D.W.2 deposed that the Kristappa is no more. D.W.2 deposed that the Kristappa is son of his Senior paternal uncle. D.W.2 deposed that the said Kristappa was working under 1st defendant as a watchman. D.W.2 deposed that the Kristappa worked under 1st defendant from 2007 to 2021. D.W.2 deposed that Kristappa got registered F.I.R., under SC/ST Act against the plaintiff. D.W.2 deposed that he know the details of quarrel and the details as to the disputed property which lead to quarrel and ultimately registering F.I.R., under SC/ST Act against plaintiff as he was present there at the lime of quarrel.
f) D.W.2 deposed that he had seen Lakshmidevamma cultivating plaint schedule property by growing crops in the month of September, 2007 again the witness says that it is November, 2007 and thereafter it was purchased by 1st defendant. D.W.2 deposed that he do not know who was the owner of plaint schedule property prior to Lakshmidevamma executing sale deed in favour of 1st defendant. D.W.2 denied to the suggestions that as he had come to depose in favour of 1st defendant as such he do not know the real facts of this case. D.W.2 denied to the suggestions that Lakshmidevamma and her husband sold away the plaint schedule property about 40 to 50 years ago and that the 1st defendant
APAN10000020201079 created documents in respect of plaint schedule property and that he is deposing false evidence in his support. D.W.2 denied to the suggestions that the contents of his chief affidavit are all false and he is deposing false evidence.
16. a) Chief examination of D.W.3 states in his chief that defendant No.2 is his father. D.W.3 deposed that one Sigicherla Chalapathi, resident of Eguvagadda,
Penukoknda town has two sons namely S.Anjineyulu and S.Jayaramulu and that they were the members of the joint family of which Chalapathi was the manager of the joint family and that S.Jayaramulu has relinquished his share and executed a registred relinquishment, dt.12-06-1973 and that Chalapathi and his son Anjineyulu have became the absolute owners of the properties of joint family and that
S.Anjineylu S/o Chalapathi has filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/2 share in all the joint family properties against his father Chalapathi in
O.S.No.12/1978 on the file of the Hon’ble Subordinate Judge, Ananthapuramu now
it is Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda and that the said suit was ended in compromise and compromise decree was passed by the Hon'ble court on 03.03.1978 and that total extent of the suit survey number is an extent of Ac.16-48 cents of land out of it Ac.8-24 cents of land on Eastern side was allotted to the share of Anjineyulu and that ever since the date of partition the said Anjineyulu was in possession and enjoyment of the said 1/2 share during his life time and after his death the plaintiff who is his son is in possession and enjoyment of the said property.
b) D.W.3 deposed that Chalapathi, the father of Anjineyulu and Jayaramulu had sold away his share of properties that had fallen to his share in O.S.
No.12/1978 to various persons and that the said Chalapathi had sold his 1/2 share in the suit survey number on western side i.e., an extent of Ac.8-24 cents of land to his father Late Dasari Rangappa who is the defendant No.2 and his father was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said 1/2 share of Chalapathi. After the demise of his father he is in possession of the Ac.8-24 cents in the suit survey number.
APAN10000020201080
c) D.W.3 deposed that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of eastern portion in suit survey number with specific boundaries i.e., East : Land of Jyotheppa and Ramanappa, West : Land of Dasari Rangappa (defendant No.2), North : Land of Thimmaiah and South : Land of Jyotheppa. D.W.3 deposed that the defendant
No.2 was in exclusive possession and enjoyment Ac.8-24 cents in the suit Sy.
No.686 with specific boundaries, East : Land of plaintiff, West : Land of Suleman,
North : Lands of Thimmaiah and Raumappa and South : Land of Dasari Rangappa (defendant No.2) with absolute rights. D.W.3 deposed that after demise of his father he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said property. D.W.3 deposed that the defendant No.1 and Lakshmidevamma W/o Jayaramulu actively connived with each other and created the sale deed to make a false claim over the suit schedules survey number though Lakshmidevamma has no right, title or possession over the suit survey number.
17) a) Cross examination of D.W.3 states in his cross that he had seen the revenue records of the plaintiff and he know to read and write Telugu. D.W.3 deposed that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.8-22 cents in plaint schedule survey number. When pattadar pass book issued in the name of plaintiff is confronted to the D.W.3, he admitted that land to an extent of Ac.8-22 cents is mutated in the name of plaintiff. D.W.3 deposed that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property till today. D.W.3 deposed that the relative of defendant No.1 is working in the revenue department. Penukonda.
b) D.W.3 deposed that he had studied up to degree in Open University. D.W.3 deposed that the defendant No.2 died in the year 2015. D.W.3 deposed that his father filed written statement in this case during his lifetime. D.W.3 deposed that his father is having two wives namely Chandramma and Pullamma. D.W.3 deposed that himself and Venkatalakshmi are children to their father through Chandramma.
D.W.3 deposed that his father had no issues with Pullamma and said Pullamma is no more and Pullamma died in the year 1994. D.W.3 deposed that he had not filed any additional written statement after coming on record in this case. D.W.3
APAN10000020201081 deposed that his sister Venkatalakshmi is not made party to this suit, the D.W.3 adds that she is not made as party as she died. D.W.3 deposed that the
Venkatalakshmi died in the year 1984. D.W.3 deposed that he had read the contents of plaint. D.W.3 deposed that the plaintiff did not seek any relief either against his father or against him and defendant No.3. D.W.3 deposed that there is no averments in the plaint that he is interfering with the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over plaint schedule property. D.W.3 deposed that Ex.B.41 and Ex.B.42 are not pertaining to plaint schedule property. D.W.3 deposed that he had filed O.S.
No.117/2021 on the file of this Court against defendant No.1. When certified copy of plaint is confronted to the D.W.3, he admitted that the plaint is of O.S.No.
117/2021. Ex.B.43 is the certified copy of plaint in OS.No.117/2021. D.W.3 deposed that the plaint in O.S.No.117/2021 is filed by him through Late Sri
K.S.Rajasekhar, Advocate on 17-03-2021. D.W.3 deposed that the extent of plaint schedule property in O.S.No.117/2021 is Ac.2-74 cents out of Ac.16-48 cents in
Sy.No.686. D.W.3 deposed that he had gone through written statement filed by his father. D.W.3 deposed that the defendant No.2 filed appeal before the R.D.O.,
Penukonda against defendant No.1 and that the R.D.O., Penukonda passed orders on 09.06.2021 under Ex.B10. D.W.3 deposed that the defendant No.2 approached
R.D.O., Penukonda for cancellation of pattadar pass book of defendant No.1 in respect of plaint schedule property. When Ex.B9 is confronted to the D.W.3 he admitted that it is passed by the Tahsildar, Penukonda in respect of plaint schedule property. D.W.3 denied to the suggestion that the revenue authorities issued pattadar pass books to the defendant No.1 as he is in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. D.W.3 deposed that his father did not file any Civil Suit against defendant No.1 during his lifetime apart from preferring Ex.B.10, the witness says that his father did not prefer to file a Civil Suit against defendant No.1 since this case (O.S.No.216/2010) is pending. D.W.3 deposed that the property purchased under Ex.B.7 and Ex.B.8 by the defendant No.1 is the property mentioned in O.S.No.216/2010 and O.S.No.117/2021 together. D.W.3 deposed that
APAN10000020201082 he had not gone through the written statement, oral evidence and documents exhibited of defendant No.1. D.W.3 denied to the suggestion that he had got prepared his chief affidavit without going through written statement, oral evidence and documents exhibited of defendant No.1. D.W.3 deposed that he was supporting/affirming the written statement of his father. D.W.3 deposed that his father/defendant No.2 filed his written statement praying to dismiss this suit. D.W.3 deposed that he had filed his chief affidavit for decreeing this suit in favour of plaintiff. D.W.3 deposed that it is not mentioned in his chief affidavit that he prayed this court for decreeing this suit in favour of plaintiff.
c) D.W.3 denied to the suggestion that himself, the plaintiff and his father colluded together and filed this suit and O.S.No.117/2021 against the defendant
No.1 in order to harass him, the D.W.3 adds that he had filed O.S. No.117/2021 based on a documents under which his father purchased property therein. D.W.3 deposed that his father purchased Ac.8-22 cents in Sy.No.686 under Ex.B.41 and
Ex.B.42. D.W.3 deposed that apart from land in Sy.No.686 they are also having lands in Sy.Nos. 690 and 689. When the digital copy of 1-B (ROR), dt. 15-04-2024 of Penukonda Village is confronted to the D.W.3 he admitted that the said 1-B is in his name and the properties mutated therein for the survey numbers 686, 689-1 and 690 are in his possession and enjoyment. Ex.B.44 is the digital copy of 1-B (ROR), dt. 15.04.2024 stands in the name of D.W.3 in Khata No. 200 of Penukonda village for the lands in Sy.Nos. 686, 689-1 and 690 (the document is marked subject to objection by counsel for the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 that the land to an extent of Ac.5-48 cents in Sy.No. 686 of Ex.B.44 is different that of plaint schedule property). D.W.3 deposed that he is having knowledge about compromise decree in
O.S.No.12/1978 and about O.S.No.44/1983, O.S.No.138/1979, A.S.No.8/1982 and
S.A. No.2/1987. D.W.3 deposed that he do not have knowledge about
E.P.No.5/1987. It is true the
d) D.W.3 deposed that charge is created in O.S.No.138/1979 and he do not have knowledge about result in S.A.No.2/1987, the D.W.3 adds that the charge was
APAN10000020201083 created in favour of Lakshmidevamma W/o Jayaramulu in the joint family property for an extent of 1/3rd share, the D.W.3 adds that the property purchased by his father under Ex.B.41 and Ex.B.42 do not come under joint family property and
Chalapathi and Hanumantharayudu partitioned the family property in the year 1958 under registered partition deed. D.W.3 deposed that there is mention of property in
Sy.No.686 in the charge which was created in favour of Lakshmidevamma. D.W.3 deposed that he had not mentioned in his chief affidavit and also by his father in his written statement that Chalapathi and Hanumantharayudu partitioned the family property in the year 1958 under registered partition deed.
e) D.W.3 denied to the suggestion that the Honble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, Amaravathi gave Judgment that his father, Anjineyulu (father of plaintiff) and Chalapathi colluded together and created sale deeds and said alienations are not valid under law. D.W.3 deposed that the time of Ex.B.7 and Ex.B.8 Chalapathi and Jayaramulu died. D.W.3 denied to the suggestion that Lakshmidevamma sold plaint schedule property and property mentioned in plaint schedule in OS.
No.117/2021 to defendant No.1 under Ex.B.7 and Ex.B.8 for her maintenance and that he is deposing false evidence. D.W.3 deposed that the revenue officials did not issue any notice to them while issuing Ex.A12 to the plaintiff. D.W.3 denied to the suggestion that Ex.A.12 was created as the plaintiff did not preferred any appeal on the orders of Tahsildar, Penukonda and that his father preferred appeal against the orders of Tahsildar, Penukonda. D.W.3 denied to the suggestion that himself and plaintiff created fake documents and filed false suits in order to harass the defendant No.1. D.W.3 denied to the suggestion that the contents of para No.4 of his chief affidavit with regard to plaintiff being in possession to the property mentioned therein is false. D.W.3 denied to the suggestion that he do not know details of plaint schedule property.
f) D.W.3 deposed that he had filed some other cases against his relatives at
Hindupur Court and also O.S.No.219/2020 on the file of this Court for recovery of money. D.W.3 denied to the suggestion that he is veteran litigant and that as the
APAN10000020201084 prices hiked in this area he had colluded with the plaintiff and filed this false suit against the defendant No.1 in order to harass him and grab money from him by taking of the advantage that he is residing in U.S.A. D.W.3 deposed that he had no connection with the plaint schedule property. D.W.3 denied to the suggestion that the plaint schedule property of this case and property mentioned in the plaint schedule of O.S.No.117/2021 is in the possession and enjoyment of defendant
No.1 since the date of his purchase under Ex.B.7 and Ex.B.8 i.e., since 2007-2008 and that by hypothecating said properties the defendant No.1 obtained loans from the bank. D.W.3 denied to the suggestion that the defendant No.1 availed bank loan from 2008 to 2016 under Ex.B.31 to Ex.B.38. D.W.3 deposed that he had not lodged any report or preferred any complaint before this court or made presentation to any authority stating that defendant No.1 is having relative in the revenue department and that said relative recommended the name of defendant No.1 for mutation in the revenue records in respect of plaint schedule property. D.W.3 denied to the suggestion that neither him nor the plaintiff are in possession and enjoyment of the properties purchased by defendant No.1.
18) For the convenience this Court decided the Issues and the Additional
Issues in the following manner.
Additional Issue No.3 :
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration of title over the plaint schedule property?
The case and the evidence of plaintiff/P.W.1 is that he is the son of Late
Anjineyulu. His father Late Anjineyulu and S.Jayaramulu are the sons of one
Sigichetla Chalapathi of Yeguvagadda of Penukonda Town and they were joint
Hindu family members and the said Sigichetla Chalapathi was the manager of their family. Accordingly, the said Sigichetla Chalapathi is the grandfather of plaintiff. On 12.06.1973 S.Jayaramulu relinquished his share under Registered Relinquished
Deed. Hence Sigichetla Chalapathi and his son Anjineyulu who is the father of the plaintiff have become absolute owners of the properties of their joint family. The
APAN10000020201085 plaintiff/P.W.1 deposed in his cross examination that the registered relinquishment deed was with him. Though the plaintiff/P.W.1 deposed that S.Jayaramulu relinquished his share to the Chalapathi who is his grandfather and to his father
Anjineyulu, and though plaintiff/P.W.1 deposed that the relinquishment deed is with him, but that relinquishment deed dated 12.06.1973 was not filed by the plaintiff/
P.W.1 to prove his plea of relinquishment by the S.Jayaramulu with regarding to the entire joint family property including the land to an extent of Ac.16-48 cents in
Sy.No.686 of Penukonda which is the disputed total land in the present suit.
19) Subsequently S.Anjineyulu who is the father of the plaintiff/P.W.1 has filed O.S.No.12/1978 against his father Sigichetla Chalapathi for partition and for separate possession of his half share of their all joint family properties in the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Ananthapuramu now it is Hon’ble Senior Civil
Judge’s Court, Ananthapuramu and the said suit was ended in compromise and
accordingly a decree was passed by the Hon’ble Court on 03.03.1978 under the decree/Ex.A1. As per the plea of the plaintiff the total extent of the suit survey number is Ac.16-48 cents and out of it i.e., an extent of Ac.8.24 cents on the eastern side was allotted to the share of Anjineyulu i.e., the father of the plaintiff as per the compromise under Ex.A1 and from the date of the said compromise plaintiff father i.e., Anjineyulu was in possession and enjoyment of the property i.e., an extent of Ac.8.24 cents till his death and after the death of the plaintiff’s father, the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the said property i.e., an extent of
Ac.8.24 cents of land on the eastern side in survey No.686 and also he was in possession and enjoyment of his 1/6th share of the plaint schedule property in this case i.e., Ac.2.78 cents in Sy.No.686 of Penukonda. But no reliable evidence was produced by the plaintiff/P.W.1 was in possession and enjoyment over the extent of
Ac.8-24 cents and Ac.2-78 cents (1/6th share) before this Court to prove his case.
20) As per the evidence of plaintiff/P.W.1 one Lakshmidevamma of Chalapalli
Village of Somandepalli who is the wife of Jayaramulu filed a suit O.S.No.138/1978 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Penukonda against her husband Jayaramulu
APAN10000020201086 and her father-in-law Chalapathi for maintenance and for charge over the alleged 1/3rd share of Jayaramulu in the suit survey number i.e., 686, and accordingly it was decreed on contest by granting maintenance to the said Lakshmidevamma who is the wife of Jayaramulu and created a charge over 1/3rd share in the suit sur- vey number against the Jayaramulu and Chalapathi. Plaintiff deposed that since
Anjineyulu who is the father of the plaintiff was not a party in the maintenance suit in O.S.No.138/1979, hence said Judgment was not maintainable on Anjineyulu.
Further plaintiff deposed that as Anjineyulu was not a party to the
O.S.No.138/1979, the charge was created in the half share of Chalapathi that too
1/3rd share and no suit is filed and charge is asked against the half share of
Anjineyulu. Further plaintiff deposed that instead of asking a charge on 1/3rd share in Chalapathi’s half share as if charge is asked for in the entire extent also is not binding on the Anjineyulu and further deposed that the charge must be the 1/3rd share of the half share of Chalapathi i.e., on the western half portion of Ac.8-24 cents of land in the suit survey number.
21) Further plaintiff/P.W.1 deposed that said Lakshmidevamma never brought the charged property for sale for recovery of maintenance amount and the period for limitation for execution of the decree in O.S.No.138/1979 is only 12 years and further deposed that except a decree for maintenance and a charge for realiza- tion of maintenance amount, said Lakshmidevamma has no right over the 1/3rd share in the suit survey number property and deposed that Lakshmidevamma never in possession and enjoyment of of any share in the suit survey number or in the other properties fell to the share of Chalapathi under O.S.No.12/1979. Further as per the evidence of plaintiff/P.W.1 disclose that Lakshmidevamma and her hus- band Jayaramulu colluded together and filed O.S.No.44/1983 on the file of Hon’ble
Senior Civil Judge Court, Penukonda for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd
share in all the family properties by challenging the relinquishment deed dt.12.06.1963. But on contest the said suit was dismissed on 17.01.1986 and an is- sue with regarding to the relinquishment deed was framed and considered by the
APAN10000020201087
Court and on that Judgment no appeal was preferred and that Judgment is final and binding on the Lakshmidevamma. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of Judgment in
O.S. No.44/1983, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of decree in O.S. No.44/1983 and
Ex.A4 is the certified copy of plaint in O.S. No.44/1983 and Ex.A6 is the certified copy of written statement of second defendant in O.S. No.44/1983. Plaintiff/P.W.1 deposed that Chalapathi the father of the Anjineyulu and Jayaramulu has sold away his share of properties that had fallen to the share in O.S. No.12/1979 to various persons and the said Chalapathi had sold his half share in the suit survey number on the west side i.e., an extent of Ac.8-24 cents of land to the defendant No.2 and accordingly defendant No.2 is in possession and enjoyment of the said half share of
Chalapathi land and except that defendant No.2 nobody has any right, title or possession in the total extent of suit survey number. But defendant No.1 obtained a sale deed for 1/3rd share by showing boundaries for full extent of Ac.16.45 cents under a registered sale deed dt.10.12.2007 even knowing well all that
Lakshmidevamma has no right in the suit survey number and got mutation of his name by managing the revenue officials. Further plaintiff/P.W.1 deposed that he is in possession and enjoyment of eastern portion in the suit survey number with specific boundaries i.e., East – Land of Jyothappa and Ramanappa, West – Land of
Dasari Rangappa, North - Land of Thimmaiah now in the possession of
P.Seshappa, South – Land of Jyothappa. In view of sale deed, defendant No.1 is threatening him to trespass and occupied his land and into the land of defendant
No.2. Further Plaintiff/P.W.1 deposed that there is no dispute with regarding his 1/3rd share, but the dispute is only for 1/6th share i.e., the suit property more fully described in the suit property and now towards it is called as suit property and to avoid the legal complication he filed this suit for 1/6th share in the suit survey number and also alternative mentioning in the schedule for an extent of Ac.2-74 cents which is equal to 1/6th joint share by showing the boundaries alternatively and he also filed the suit against the defendant No.2 to avoid the multiplicity of litigations. Further plaintiff/P.W.1 deposed that C.M.A. No.8/2012 on the file of
APAN10000020201088
Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda was preferred against the order of I.A. No.
470/2010 in this suit and it is pending. But the S.H.O., Penukonda called the plaintiff to the Police Station and asked the plaintiff for settlement and the S.H.O. of
Penukonda allowed the men of the defendant No.1 to plaugh the suit property and also the equal share of defendants 2 to 4 in total an extent of Ac.5.52 cents through the Tractor and laid white slab fencing all along the extent i.e., Ac.5.52 cents on 02.10.2019 with the help of S.H.O., Penukonda and deposed that the men of defendant No.1 encroached the suit property.
22) On the other hand the case and the evidence of plaintiff/P.W.1 is contended by the defendant No.1 in his written statement and in his evidence by contending that he has purchased suit schedule property and adjacent part of agricultural land with an extent of Ac.5-48 cents through his vendor Singichetla
Lakshmidevamma W/o Jayaramulu who is the paternal aunt of plaintiff/P.W.1 under registered sale deed/Ex.B7 bearing No.4470 of 2007 dated 10.12.2007 for sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- and from the date of the sale, he was in possession of the suit schedule property and his vendor S.Lakshmidevamma got the charge over the property in survey No.686 i.e., an extent of Ac.16-45 cents and other properties for recovery of maintenance in O.S.No.138/1979 under the Ex.B1 and
Ex.B2 i.e., Certified copy of Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.138/1979. Said
Decree was passed by the Court on merits. After that Chalapathi who is the father of Jayraramulu and the Anjineyulu preferred appeal in A.S.No.8/1982 and second appeal No.2 of 1987 before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. against the
Lakshmidevamma who is the vendor of the defendant No.1/D.W.1 and the same were dismissed under Ex.B3 certified copy of appeal in A.S.No. 8/1982 by the
Hon’ble Subordinate Judge, Penukonda and Ex.B4 certified copy of second appeal
S.A. No.2/1987 by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. and the Judgment in
O.S.No.138/1979 is became final. Further defendant No.1/D.W.1 contended that
this suit O.S.No.216/2010 and O.S.No.117/2021 filed by the legal-heirs of Dasari
Rangappa are the third round litigations filed by the plaintiff and the deceased
APAN10000020201089 defendant No.2/Dasari Rangappa legal-heirs and deposed that plaintiff suppressed the facts and tried to occupy his property with the political and police influence.
Further plaintiff deposed that all the authorities including the electric department confirmed his ownership and possession after enquiry from the date of his purchase.
23) On the other hand though deceased defendant No.2/Dasari Rangappa and the defendant No.4 who is the legal-heir of deceased defendant No.2 filed the written statement and additional written statement and examined the defendant
No.4 as D.W.3 and on perusing the evidence of D.W.3, this Court found that deceased defendant No.2 and defendant No.4 are sailed with the case and claim of plaintiff as the defendant No.4/D.W.3 deposed as the Chalapathi who is the father of Anjineyulu and Jayaramulu sold away his share which fallen to him in
O.S.No.12/1978 to various person and said Chalapathi had sold his 1/2 share in the
suit survey number on West side to an extent of Ac.8.24 cents of land to his father late Dasari Rangappa who is the defendant No.2 in this suit and after the demise of
Dasari Rangappa, defendant No.4/D.W.3 was in possession of an extent of Ac.8-24 cents in suit survey number. Further defendant No.4/D.W.3 deposed that the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of eastern portion in the suit survey number with specific boundaries i.e., East – Land of Jyothappa and Ramanappa,
West – Land of Dasari Rangappa (Deceased Defendant No.2), North – Land of
Thimmaiah and South – Land of Jyothappa and deposed that his father i.e., deceased defendant No.2 was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of Ac.8-24 cents in the suit survey No.686 with the specific boundaries i.e., East - Land of plaintiff, West – Land of Suleman, North – Land of Thimmaiah and Ramappa and
South – Land of Dasari Rangappa i.e., deceased defendant No.2 with absolute rights and after the demise of said Dasari Rangappa (deceased Defendant No.2).
Further defendant No.4/D.W.3 deposed that defendant No.1 and Lakshmidevamma
W/o Jayaramulu actively connived with each other and created the sale deed to
APAN10000020201090 make a false claim over the suit schedule survey number, though
Lakshmidevamma has no right, title or possession over the suit survey number.
24) As per the oral evidence of the plaintiff/P.W.1, plaintiff have right, title and in possession in the plaint schedule property with an extent of Ac.2-76 cents i.e., equivalent to 1/6th of his joint share in survey No.686 of Penukonda Village.
Initially basing on the registration sale deed Ex.A7/Ex.B7, defendant threatened the plaintiff/P.W.1 to trespass into his land. But the men of the defendant on 02.10.2019 ploughed the suit schedule property and also the equal share of defendant Nos.2 to 4 in total extent of Ac.5.52 cents through tractor and laid with slab fencing all along with an extent of Ac.5.52 cents with the help of S.H.O.,
Penukonda. On perusing the evidence this Court found that Chalapathi was the manager to an extent of Ac.16.48 cents of land in survey number 686 of
Penukonda Village and other properties and those properties are joint family properties. Chalapathi have two sons by name Jayaramulu and Anjineyulu. Plaintiff was the son of Anjineyulu. As per the oral evidence of the plaintiff on 12.06.1973
Jayaramulu relinquished his share i.e., his 1/3rd share. Thus, the father i.e.,
Chalapathi and the father of the plaintiff by name Anjineyulu have become the absolute owners of their joint family properties.
25) Subsequently, the father of the plaintiff i.e., Anjineyulu and the grandfather of the plaintiff by name Chalapathi each got Ac.8-24 cents as 1/2 share to each out of Ac.16-48 cents by way of compromise in O.S.No.12/1978/Ex.A1 on the file of Subordinate Judge’s Court, Ananthapuramu on 03.09.1978. From than onwards father of the plaintiff Anjineyulu was in possession and enjoyment of his 1/2 share which was allotted on the eastern side during his life time and after his death plaintiff who is his son is in possession and enjoyment of the said property and revenue officials also issued the pattadar pass books in favour of the plaintiff.
Further as per the oral evidence of plaintiff/P.W.1 his grandfather Chalapathi sold away his share of properties that had fallen to his share in O.S.No.12/1978 to various persons and said Chalapathi sold his 1/2 share in the suit survey number
APAN10000020201091 on western side i.e., an extent of Ac.8-24 cents of land to the 2nd defendant and accordingly 2nd defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the said 1/2 share of the Chalapathi land. At to this juncture the case and the evidence of the plaintiff/
P.W.1 was contended by the D.W.1/Defendant No.1 in his evidence by deposing that, his vendor Lakshmidevamma was the wife of Jayaramulu and she filed
O.S.No.138/1979 against his father-in-law Chalapathi and his husband Jayaramulu
for maintenance and for creation of charge on 1/3rd share in the entire properties and obtained the Judgment and Decree Exs.B1 and B2 on merits against the
Chalapathi and Jayaramulu. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree
Chalapathi preferred an appeal in A.S.No.8/1982 and second appeal No.2/1987
before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. against the vendor of the plaintiff by name
Lakshmidevamma and the said appeals were dismissed under the Ex.B3 and
Ex.B4, accordingly the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No.138/1979 was become final. But by collusion, father of the plaintiff S.Anjineyulu filed O.S.No.12/1978 against his father S.Chalapathi and his mother Gundamma without impleading the
S.Jayaramulu who is the husband of Lakshmidevamma and obtained a collusive compromise decree for partition and separate possession. But the D.W.1/defendant
No.1 contended that since husband of his vendor by name Jayaramulu was not party to that suit, hence that compromise Decree was not binding on Jayaramulu and his wife. At this juncture on perusing the Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 i.e., Judgment and
Decree in O.S.No.138/1979 which was decided by the Hon’ble District Munsif,
Penukonda in between Lakshmidevamma and the Jayaramulu and Chalapathi, this
Court found that an extent of Ac.16-45 cents in Sy. No.686 of Penukonda Village i.e., total disputed land here in this suit was the item No.1 of the said suit schedule along with the other properties and except the item No.4 i.e., house situated in
Penukonda with Door No.7/175-A in that suit schedule, the Hon’ble Court created charge over 1/3rd share in that plaint schedule property including the item No.1 i.e.,
Ac.16-45 cents in Sy. No.686 of Penukonda Village for recovery of the maintenance amount i.e., Rs.200/- per month towards the maintenance and Rs.350/- per month
APAN10000020201092 towards house rent and Rs.180/- towards clothing and utensils per year by the
Lakshmidevemma who is the vendor of the defendant No.1/D.W.1 and who is the plaintiff therein. Further on perusing the Ex.A3/Certified copy of A.S.No.8/1982 which was the appeal preferred by the S.Chalapathi against the Judgment and
Decree in O.S.No.138/1979 was dismissed on merits by the Hon’ble Subordinate
Judge Court, Penukonda by stating as “hence in view of the circumstances and
in the light of the decision the creation of charge by the lower Court over the
1/3rd share of the plaint schedule properties is not liable to be set aside”.
Further this Court found through the Ex.B4, the second appeal which was preferred by the S.Chalapathi against the first appeal A.S.No.8/1982 was dismissed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. Further on
perusing the Ex.B5 the Hon’ble District Munsif, Penukonda in E.P.No.5/1987 in
O.S.No.138/1979 ordered the D.Hr/Lakshmidevamma to proceed against the
properties of her husband which are in the hands of the respondent No.2 i.e.,
S.Chalapathi and the order portion of that E.P. held is as below. (Page No.3 in
Ex.B5).
The learned counsel for the Decree Holder relied on a decision
P.Simhadri Raju and Others Vs. P.Annapurnama reported in 1986 (2) ALT
Page No.87 wherein it is held that “if the right to maintenance is imperiled of
jeopardized by the conduct and dealings of the husband or father with
reference to his properties the Court can created charge on a suitable
property whereof securing the payment of maintenance to the wife or
children. Such a charge could be created not only over the properties in the
hands of the husband or father. But also over the properties transferred by
him either gratuitously or the person having notice of the right to
maintenance”.
Here in the present case it is clear from the certified copy of the decree that a charge over the petition schedule properties to an extent of 1/3rd share of her
APAN10000020201093 husband was created for recovery of maintenance amount. The second respondent herein who is other than the father of the 1 st respondent took a relinquishment deed from the 1 st respondent knowing full well that there is charge over the petition schedule property to an extent of 1/3rd share. So the facts of the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the decree holder remain on all force to the present case. So taking into consideration the material available on record and the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the decree holder that the decree holder is at liberty to proceed against the properties of her husband which are in the hands of the second respondent in pursuance of the decree already granted. This point is found in favour of the petitioner.
26) Again on perusing the Ex.B6 this Court found that said S.Chalapathi preferred Civil Revision Petition No.1312/1989 before the Hon’ble High Court of
Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad against the order in E.P. No.5/1987 in
O.S.No.138/1979 but the same was dismissed by mentioning the following
observations.
The learned District Munsif very rightly rejected that contention following the decision of this Court in Simhadri Raju and Others Vs. Annapurnamma (1) wherein it was held :
“ if the right to maintenance is imperiled or jeopardized by the conduct and dealing of the husband or father with reference to his properties, the Court can create a charge
APAN10000020201094 on a suitable property whereof securing the payment of maintenance to the wife and children. Such a charge could be created not only over the properties in the hands of the husband or father but also over the properties transferred by him either gratuitously or the persons having notice of the right to maintenance”.
The ruling of the Madras High Court in Madhavan
Nair Vs. Choorapra Unnitha (2) is of no assistance to the petitioner. The principle laid down therein has no application to the case on hand. In the result, the revision petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed at the admission stage.
27) Now on perusing the record, total extent of land in survey No.686 of
Penukonda Village was with an extent of Ac.16-48 cents as per the plaintiff claim.
But it was mentioned as Ac.16.45 cents in O.S.No.138/1979. In it plaintiff/P.W.1 is claiming the plaint schedule property as it is his 1/6th share from the Ac.16-48 cents as the total extent of Ac.16-48 cents were partitioned between his father
Anjineyulu and his grandfather Chalapathi under the compromise decree/Ex.A1 in
O.S.No.12/1978 and each got Ac.8-24 cents. P.W.1/Plaintiff deposed that as his
father Anjineyulu was not a party to the suit, the charge was created in the half share of Chalapathi that too 1/3rd share and further deposed that no suit is filed and charge is asked against the 1/2 share of the Anjineyulu and further deposed that instead of asking a charge on 1/3rd share in Chalapathi’s 1/2 share as if charge is asked for in the entire extent is also not binding on his father. To this regard this Court found that the Hon’ble District Munsif Court, Penukonda created 1/3rd charge over the Ac.16.45 cents in survey No.686 along with the other properties in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff by name Lakshmidevamma.
APAN10000020201095
Though the father of plaintiff/P.W.1 was not party to that O.S.No.138/1979, on perusing the Judgment and Order of the Hon’ble District Munsif Court, Penukonda this Court found that in that Judgment, Jayaramulu who is the husband of the
Lakshmidevamma and Chalapathi who is the grandfather of the plaintiff took the contention against the case of Lakshmidevamma by the aid of relinquishment deed executed by the Jayaramulu in the year 1973, but that defence was discarded by the Hon’ble District Munsif, Penukonda by stating that;
“in view of the all the above, it must be held that 2 nd
defendant (Chalapathi) being fully aware of the
maintenance claim of the plaintiff (Lakshmidevamma)
got executed the relinquishment deed for Rs.5,000/-
which is disproportionate to the share of the value of
the 1 st defendant (Jayaramulu) in the properties.
Though there is an allegation that a sum of Rs.15,000/-
has been spent by the second defendant to the 1 st
defendant for medicines upto 1981, there is no record
for it. Admittedly, the 1 st defendant is not living with
the second defendant at all. According to Ex.B2
compromise decree between the second defendant
and his first son on 03.03.1978 Ac.8-24 cents was
given in item No.1. Item No.4 has been given away to
the 1 st son of the second defendant. The other
properties are retained by the defendant No.1. The
plaintiff’s claimed half share in A and B schedule
properties in that suit. It was a compromise decree. So
deducting the properties that has been given to the
first son the balance of the property is available for
second defendant. Admittedly the 1 st defendant has
1/3rd share in all the properties so there will be a
APAN10000020201096
charge over the plaint schedule property for 1/3rd
share only for recovery of maintenance. Issue Nos.1
and 2 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendants” (Page Nos.41 and 42 of Ex.B1).
28) By stating so decreed the suit against the defendant No.1 (Jayaramulu) and dismissed the suit against the defendant No.2 (Chalapathi) but creating the charge over 1/3rd share in all the plaint schedule properties for recovery of maintenance except Item No.4. Further the Hon’ble Appellate Courts also upheld the charge created by the Hon’ble District Munsif Court of Penukonda in
O.S.No.138/1979 in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff. Further learned
Subordinate Judge, Penukonda in the A.S.No.8/1986 by upholding the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.138/1979 and held that;
Here in this appeal it is urged by the learned
counsel for the appellant that the relinquishment
deed in favour of the 2nd defendant executed by
the 1 st defendant was upheld in a suit by the 1 st
defendant against 2nd defendant, his brothers
and his mother on the file of the Sub Court,
Penukonda in O.S.44 of 1983 and so by virtue of
that Judgment the 1 st defendant had no right in
the plaint schedule properties, because of the
relinquishment deed executed by him was upheld
in that suit. The plaintiff is not a party to the said
suit. What ever it may be the 1st defendant had
relinquished his share in co-parcenery property
subsequent in the execution of the
relinquishment deed by the 1 st defendant in
favour of 2 nd defendant the suit was filed by
APAN10000020201097
Anineyulu son of and defendant against 2nd
defendant in O.S.No.12/78 for half-share in the
plaint ‘A’ and ‘B schedule properties in that suit.
Here Anjineyulu in no other than the son of the
appellant -2nd defendant. Here a compromise
decree was passed in that suit in that
compromise decree item No.4 of the present
schedule properties was allotted to the share of
Anjineyulu along with other properties and the
rest of the properties were allotted to the 2nd
defendant. Here no charge was created over item
No.4 of the plaint schedule which was allotted to
the said Anjaneyulu under Ex/B2. So the plaint
schedule properties were allotted to the 2nd
defendant under Ex.B2 who is co-parcener.
Further the maintenance claim of the respondent-
plaintiff has to be safeguarded. At this juncture
the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff
relied on a decision in P.Narasimha Reddy and
others Vs. F.Narayanamma reported in 1977
Andhra Law Times.
This decision deals with Hindu Law Joint
Family – Relinquishment of interest by member of
joint family wife of such a co-percener is entitled
to maintenance. In this decision it is held es
follows: "In the present case even though 's' has
relinquished his share, there were no partition of
the joint-Family, but only his seperation from the
joint family and the other members continued to
APAN10000020201098
remain co-parceners. The relinquishment was in
favour of co-parcenery. The property relinquished
continued to be co-parcenery property. A
coparcenary has to maintain his wife. Who ever
gets his share or his estate has duty to maintain
her. It is a presisting right which she has.
Therefore, the plaintiff has a right to claim
maintenance from the defendants who had
possession of the estate of 'S' in their hands".
Here in this particular case even though
subsequent relinquishment deed, there was a
compromise decree between the appellant-2nd
defendant and his another son, yet the properties
over which the said charge was created fell to the
share of the 2nd defendant So the respondent-
plaintiff can have very well have charge over the
plaint schedule properties which fell to the share
of the 2nd defendant to safeguard her interest
and also for prompt payment of maintenance
amount granted to the respondent-plaintiff, as
otherwise there will be no hope for the plaintiff in
realizing the maintenance amount granted to her.
Under these circumstances the charge created by
the lower court over the 1/3rd share in the plaint
schedule properties has to be upheld. Further in
view of the decision referred to above inspite of
the relinquishment deed executed by the 1st
defendant in favour of 2nd defendant, the plaintiff
can proceed upon the properties in the hands of
APAN10000020201099
the 2nd defendant who is co-parcener along with
her husband at the time of the relinquishment
deed and those properties fell to the share of the
2nd defendant under the compromise decree in
O.S.No.12/78.
Hence in view of the circumstances and in
the light of the decision the creation of charge by
the lower court over the 1/3rd share of the plaint
schedule properties is not liable to be set aside.
Hence, this point is held accordingly.
29) At this juncture this Court gone through the citations filed by the learned plaintiff counsel in
1) Kurella Naga Druva Vudaya Bhaskara Rao Vs. Galla Janikamma @
Macharamma 2009 (3) ALD 416,
2) Rapuru Krishnaiah Vs. Konda Veera Raghavulu 2014 (3) ALD 628, A.P.
3) Hussain Ahmed Choudhury and others Vs. Habibur Rahman (Dead) Through Lrs and others 2025 (4) ALT 54 Supreme Court.
And this Court has also gone through the citations which are relied by the learned counsel for the defendant No.1……….
1) Moreshar S/o Yadaorao Mahajan Vs. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (D) Thr. Lrs.
And others Civil Appeal Nos.5755-5756 of 2011 dt.27.09.2022 of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India,
2) Vaddeboyina Tulasamma Vs. Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi 1977 Law Suit (SC) 139,
3) Devarapalli Malla Reddy (Died) and others Vs. Gadiyam Hanumayamma and others 2012 (2) ALT 149,
APAN100000202010100
4) Bobbala Kondamma and others Vs. Siddireddi Rami Reddy (died) per Lrs. 2014 (5) ALT 454 (D.B.),
5) Ponjurangam and others Vs. Darshanala Swamy and others 2012 (2) ALT 607,
6) Kothapalli Venkateswara Rao Vs. Myneni Raghavamma and another AIR 2019
Andhra Pradesh 89,
7) Hari Lal Vs. Balvantia 1998 Law Suit (AII) 75,
8) Jupudy Pardha Sarathy Vs. Pentapati Rama Krishna and Others 2015 Law Suit (SC) 1108 and
9) Bai Vajia V/s Thakorbhai Chelabhai 1979 Law Suit (SC) 146
10) Smt Gulwant Kaur & Another Vs. Mohinder Singh & Ors on 20.07.1987 AIR 1987 SC 2251,
11) Smt Gulwant Kaur & Another Vs. Mohinder Singh & Ors AIR 1991 SC 1581 = 1991 SCC 410,
12) Jagannathan Pillai Vs. Kunjithapadam Pillai & Ors on 21.04.1987 AIR 1987 1493,
13) Kallakuri Pattabhiramaswamy Vs. Kallkuri Kamaraju Civil Appeal No.5389/2012 dt.21.11.2024, 5) Raghubar Singh & Ors Vs. Gulab Singh & Ors on 14-07-1998 AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2401,
14) Smt Gulwant Kaur & Another Vs. Mohinder Singh & Ors on 20.07.1987 AIR 2251,
15) Jagannathan Pillai Vs. Kunjithapadam Pillai & Ors on 21.04.1987 AIR 1493,
16) Smt Smiriti Debbarma (D) Thr Lr. Vs. Sri Prabha Ranjan Debbarma 2023 (2)
ALD 28 SC = AIR 2023 SC 379 in Civil Appeal No.878/2009,
17) Muni Devi @ Nathi Devi Vs. Rajendra @ Lallu Lal (Dead) Thr Lrs Civil Appeal
No.5894/2019 ALD 1 SC and
18) Karuppayee Ammal Vs.Pasupathi Ammal AIR 2007 No.153 Hon’ble Madras
High Court.
And also gone through the Judgments which are relied by the learned counsel for defendant Nos.3 and 4
APAN100000202010101
1) Constance Rani Vs. Krishnaraj @ Natarajan (Died) S.A. 2114 of 2002
Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, gone through the written arguments
filed by the both parties. On perusing the case facts in this case and the plea taken by the plaintiff in this case are different and they are not the same in the case facts in the citations relied by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Hence this Court respectfully not relied on the citations of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Further this Court gone through the citations filed by the learned defence counsels and on perusing the case facts, at this juncture this Court inclined to relying of the
Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
President, Atchampeta Sannakaru Vyavasaya Karmika Sangham and 2
and others Vs. Vinta Suryakantham 80 others and others in First Appeal
No.2533/2001 dated 27.10.2025, wherein the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. relied
upon the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India
and others Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others1,
(2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 269, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:
"In a suit for declaration of title, burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff. The legal position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff in a suit for declara- tion of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not.
We are of the view that even if the title set up by the defendants is found against, in the absence of establishment of plaintiffs own title, plaintiff must be non-suited."
In a case of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Thukalan Paulo Avira &
others2, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:
"It is perfectly clear that in a suit of this description if the plaintiffs are to succeed they must do so on the strength of their own title”.
APAN100000202010102
" In a case of Sajana Granites, Madras and another vs. Manduva Srini-
vasa Rao and others3, the Composite Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh
at Hyderabad, (First Appeal No.1089 of 2000 dated 03.08.2001) held as
follows:
"The Supreme Court in M.P. Athanastus case (supra), M.M. Catholices v. Polo Avira case (supra) and this Court in C.Audilakshmamma case (supra) held that plaintiff in a suit for dec- laration of title, and for recovery of possession, can succeed only on the strength of his own ti- tle and that it is not obligatory on the defen- dants to plead and prove the possible defects in the plaintiffs title and so if the plaintiff fails to establish his title, even if the defendant fails to establish his own title, plaintiff must be non suited. In this case since appellants are seek- ing declaration of their title to the suit property they have to establish their title; and cannot ex- pect relief on the basis of the weakness of the case of respondents 1 and 2, or on the basis that the evidence adduced by respondents 1 and 2 does not establish their title to the suit property."
As per the above Judgments in a suit for declaration of title and possession plaintiff could succeed only on the strength of his own title and that proving could be done by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge his onus proof of his case, irrespective of whether the defendants have proved their case or not. Hence the plaintiff cannot expect the relief on the basis of the weakness of the case of the
APAN100000202010103 defendants or on the basis of the evidence adduced by the defendants which was not established their title to the suit schedule property. In this case the claim of the plaintiff is strongly disputed by the defendants, more particularly by the defendant
No.1/D.W.1 by stating that he purchased the 1/3rd share i.e., Ac.5-48 cents over the land in the survey No.686 from Lakshmidevamma. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff succeed his claim on the strength of his own title.
30) But as per the above discussion on perusing the Exs.B3 and B4 Hon’ble
First Appellate Court and Hon’ble High Court of A.P. the Second Appellate Court dismissed the Appeals preferred by the Chalapathi against the Judgment and
Decree/Exs.B1 and B2 and conferred the charge of 1/3rd share to the
Lakshmidevamma over the Ac.16.45 cents in Sy. No.686 along with the other properties in O.S.No.138/1979. On perusing the chief evidence and the cross examination of Plaintiff/P.W.1, this Court found that the plaintiff/P.W.1 took a plea that Judgment and the Decree of maintenance in O.S.No.138/1979 was not binding on him and his father as his father Anjineyulu was not party to that maintenance case. To this juncture this Court perused the Judgment of the Hon’ble District
Munsif, Penukonda in O.S.No.138/1979, decided the case by considering the relinquishment deed dt.12.06.1973 and compromise decree in O.S.No.12/1978 on the file of Hon’ble Sub Court, Penukonda (which were marked as Exs.B1 and B2 on behalf of defendants in O.S.No.138/1979) and decreed the suit by creating the charge of 1/3rd share over the plaint schedule properties except item No.4 i.e.,;
1) Government Dry, Sy.No.686, Ac.16.45 cents (Item No.1 in the schedule),
2) Government Dry, Sy.No.44, Ac.7.00 cents (Item No.2 in the schedule),
3) House situated in Penukonda with Door No.7/128 (Item No.3 in the schedule),
4) House situated in Penukonda Door No.1/28-1 (Item No.5 in the schedule),
5) Term Deposit of Rs.10,000/- in SBI, Penukonda (Item No.6 in the schedule),
6) Special Term Deposit No.J534809 for Rs.10,000/- in SBI, Penukonda (Item
No.7 in the schedule),
APAN100000202010104
7) Fixed deposit Rs.10,000/- in Ananthapuramu District Cooperative Central
Bank, Penukonda (Item No.8 in the schedule).
But the Hon’ble Trial Court not created the charge over the Item No.4 i.e.,
House situated in Penukonda with Door No.7/175/A. The disputed land in this case in Sy.No.686 was the item No.1 in the suit schedule in O.S.No.138/1979. Further the Hon’ble First Appellate Court also not inclined to set aside the 1/3rd charge ordered by the Lower Court over the plaint schedule properties. It disclose that in the previous litigations, 1/3rd share of charge was uphelded in favour of the
Lakshmidevamma over the plaint schedule properties except the item No.4 as decided by the Trial Court and accordingly as per the above discussion and on perusing the oral evidence of the Defendant No.1/D.W.1 this Court believed that the said 1/3rd share was transferred by the Lakshmidevamma under the sale deed
Ex.B7, and rectification deed Ex.B8 and on perusing the revenue records Exs.B11 to B30 and on perusing the oral evidence of the D.W.1/C.H.Eswarappa this Court found that the defendant No.1/D.W.1 was in possession over an extent of Ac.5-48 cents in Sy.No.686 i.e., equal to the 1/3rd share of Lakshmidevamma. However plaintiff/P.W.1 has to prove his own title by producing the cogent oral and documen- tary evidence. On perusing the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A6 and
Exs.A7 to A12 this Court found that except relying on the compromise decree in
O.S.No.12/1979 and the Judgment in O.S.No.44/1983, no reliable evidence was
produced by the plaintiff/P.W.1 to believe that the plaint schedule property i.e.,
Ac.2.76 cents out of Ac.16-48 cents in Sy.No.686 with particular boundaries in the plaint schedule is his 1/6th share and he was in possession over the plaint sched- ule property along with his other properties till the encroachment by the men of defendant No.1 i.e., on 02.10.2019. Further plaintiff do not produced any cogent evidence to believe that the total extent of the Sy.No.686 is Ac.16.48 cents and wherein the joint family properties was shown in the O.S.No.138 of 1979 as
Ac.16.45 cents. Though the Hon’ble Lower Court and the Hon’ble First Appellate
Court considered the relinquishment deed dt. 12.06.1973 but the plaintiff/P.W.1 do
APAN100000202010105 not filed that relinquishment deed before this Court in this case and this Court found that it is the first requisite in this case to prove that relinquishment was made by the
Jayaramulu. At this juncture this Court inclined to rely on the Judgment of Hon’ble
Apex Court of India in
Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors AIR 2008
SUPREME COURT 2033 held that;
13) In a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with plaintiff's posses- sion, the plaintiff will have to establish that as on the date of the suit he was in lawful possession of the suit property and defendant tried to interfere or dis- turb such lawful possession. Where the property is a building or building with appurtenant land, there may not be much difficulty in establishing posses- sion. The plaintiff may prove physical or lawful pos- session, either of himself or by him through his fam- ily members or agents or lessees/licensees. Even in respect of a land without structures, as for example an agricultural land, possession may be established with reference to the actual use and cultivation. The question of title is not in issue in such a suit, though it may arise incidentally or collaterally.
14) But what if the property is a vacant site, which is not physically possessed, used or enjoyed? In such cases the principle is that possession follows title. If two persons claim to be in possession of a vacant site, one who is able to establish title thereto will be considered to be in possession, as against
APAN100000202010106 the person who is not able to establish title. This means that even though a suit relating to a vacant site is for a mere injunction and the issue is one of possession, it will be necessary to examine and de- termine the title as a prelude for deciding the de jure possession. In such a situation, where the title is clear and simple, the court may venture a deci- sion on the issue of title, so as to decide the ques- tion of de jure possession even though the suit is for a mere injunction. But where the issue of title in- volves complicated or complex questions of fact and law, or where court feels that parties had not proceeded on the basis that title was at issue, the court should not decide the issue of title in a suit for injunction. The proper course is to relegate the plaintiff to the remedy of a full-fledged suit for dec- laration and consequential reliefs.
31) Admittedly, the plaint schedule property was a vacant site till the encroachment by the men of defendant No.1 as pleaded by the plaintiff. In general and as per the above Judgment in the cases of vacant sites, possession follows the title. But as per the above discussion and on perusing the Exs.A1 to A12 this Court found that, no reliable evidence was produced by the plaintiff to prove that he has title over the plaint schedule property for the relief of declaration and for possession. In his evidence defendant No.3/D.W.3 denied the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 and deposed that plaintiff was in possession over Ac.8-24 cents of land on the eastern side and his father late
Rangappa purchased Ac.8-24 cents i.e., 1/2 share on the western side under
Ex.B41, Ex.B42 from the Chalapathi and after the death of Rangappa he was in
APAN100000202010107 possession over the said Ac.8-24 cents under Ex.B41, Ex.B42 and Ex.B44 but this evidence is not enough to the plaintiff to prove his claim of title over the plaint schedule property. As per the evidence of plaintiff/P.W.1 deposed that he was in possession and enjoyment over the 1/2 share of his father which he derived from the compromise deed in O.S.No.12/1978 and his grandfather Chalapathi got the 1/2 share and said Chalapathi sold it to the defendant No.2 by name Late
Rangappa. But on perusing the Ex.A12 this Court found that plaintiff/P.W.1 was in possession only in extent of Ac.8-22 ½ cents wherein the father of the plaintiff got an extent of Ac.8.24 cents under the compromise decree/Ex.A1. The variation of
Ac.0.1 ½ cent was also not proved by the plaintiff/P.W.1. Further the evidence clearly established that 1/3rd share of charge was in existence in favour of the
Lakshmidevamma with regarding to an extent of Ac.16-45 cents in Sy.No.686 hence, how the plaintiff is entitled for the plaint schedule property by stating that it is his 1/6th share without proper pleadings and evidence. Though defendant No.1 is unable to prove his contention, it is the burden of the plaintiff to prove that he was in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property by producing the cogent evidence. But as per the above discussion this Court not found any reliable evidence to believe that Plaintiff/P.W.1 was in possession over the plaint schedule property till it was encroached by the men of defendant/D.W.1.
32) Further on perusing the record and the Judgment/Ex.B1 in
O.S.No.138/1979 this Court found that in that suit --
Issue No.1 is “The plaintiff entitled to any amount as maintenance and if
so what amount”?
Issue No.2 is “The plaintiff entitled to a charge on 1/3rd share in the
plaint schedule properties for realization of the maintenance amount”?
And those issue Nos.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the plaintiff (Lakshmidevamma) by stating “Admittedly the 1 st defendant (S.Jayaramulu) has 1/3rd share in all the properties so there
APAN100000202010108 will be a charge over the plaint schedule property for 1/3rd share only for recovery of maintenance”. (Page No.42 in Ex.B1).
Further stating that; “there will also be a charge over the 1/3rd share of the plaint schedule properties except item No.4 which is given away to the first son of the second defendant under Ex.B2” (Page
No.43 in Ex.B1).
Admittedly Ac.16.45 cents in Sy.No.686 of Penukonda is the item No.1 in the suit schedule in O.S.No.138/1979 and the charge for 1/3rd share is created in that suit by the Hon’ble District Munsif, Penukonda and it was upheld by the Hon’ble
Subordinate Judge, Penukonda in its first Appeal in O.S.No.8/1982. Further the
Hon’ble High Court of A.P. at the time of deciding the C.R.P. No.1312/1989 against
the order in E.P.No.5/1987 in O.S. No.138/1979 the Hon’ble High Court of A.P.
held that “the learned District Munsif very rightly rejected the contention
following the decision of this Court in Simhadri Raju and Others Vs.
Annapurnamma (1) wherein it was held:
"If the right to maintenance is Imperiled or
jeopardized by the conduct and dealings of the
husband or father with reference to his
properties, the Court can create a charge on a
suitable property whereof securing the
payment of maintenance to the wife and
children. Such a charge could be created not
only over the properties in the hands of the
husband or father, but also over the properties
APAN100000202010109
transferred by him either gratuitously or the
persons having notice of the right to
maintenance."
The ruling of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Madhavan Nair Vs.
Choorapra Unnitha (2) is of no assistance to the petitioner. The principle laid
down therein has no application to the case on hand. In the result, the
revision petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed at the admission stage.
33)Hence this Court conclude that the 1/3rd share over the Ac.16.45 cents in Sy.No.686 of Penukonda was conferred in favour of the Lakshmidevamma and it shall not be disturbed. Hence this Court conclude that the Judgment in
O.S.No.44/1983 shall not effect the charge for 1/3rd share of the Lakshmidevamma
by denying the 1/3rd share to Jayaramulu who is the husband of
Lakshmidevamma. Further O.S.No.44/1983 was filed by the Jayaramulu after creating the charge for 1/3rd share in favour of his wife Lakshmidevamma in O.S.
No.138/1979. But said Jayaramulu did not made the Lakshmidevamma as party in his suit in O.S.No.44/1983. But he made his father Chalapathi and his brother
Anjineyulu and others as defendants in that suit. Since the Lakshmidevamma have the interest over the Ac.16.45 cents in Sy.No.686 of Penukonda which was shown as the item No.1 in the O.S. No.44/1983, hence Lakshmidevamma was the necessary party to that suit. But she was not made as a party to the O.S.
No.44/1983. But the plaintiff Jayaramulu was well aware about the charge for 1/3rd share in favour of the Lakshmidevamma at the time of filing O.S.No.44/1983.
Hence this Court conclude that intentionally, said Jayaramulu not made the
Lakshmidevamma as party in the O.S. No.44/1983 with a view to safe guard the intentions of his father Chalapathi and his brother Anjineyulu who is the father of the plaintiff herein. Hence this Court conclude that the Judgment and Decree in
O.S.No. 44/1983 will not binding on the Lakshmidevamma and will not effect her
charge of 1/3rd share over the Ac.16.45 cents in Sy.No.686 of Penukonda.
APAN100000202010110
34) Presumed if at all it is true as pleaded by the plaintiff, that under compromise decree Ex.A1 his father got Ac.8-24 cents as half share on the eastern side and after his death he succeeded the same and his grandfather Chalapathi sold away his 1/2 share i.e., Ac.8-24 cents on the western side, how the plaintiff claimed suit schedule property Ac.2.76 cents in Sy.No.686 of Penukonda is in existence and he was in possession and it is his 1/6th share as the total extent of
Ac.16-48 cents is also inherited by him and disposed by his grandfather to the defendant No.2 as pleaded by the Plaintiff/P.W.1 himself. Hence this Court not believe the case of the plaintiff/P.W.1. Accordingly, this Court conclude that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration of title over the plaint schedule property and accordingly additional issue No.3 is answered against the plaintiff.
35) Additional Issues No.4 and 6 :
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of plaint schedule property by removing fencing and shed laid by the defendants during the pendency of the suit by way of mandatory injunction?
6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages of Rs.25,000/- per annum till the removal of fencing through the Court?
These two issues are taken up together for consideration in order to avoid the repetition of facts and conflict of findings.
The case and the evidence of plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property is his 1/6th share over an extent of Ac.16.48 cents in Sy.No.686 of Penukonda Village and he was in possession over his 1/6th share i.e., the plaint schedule property along with his father’s share which he derived after his father’s death and while the suit was in pending, on 02.10.2019 with the help of the S.H.O., Penukonda, the men of the defendant ploughed the suit schedule property and also the equal share of the defendants No.2 to 4 in total extent of Ac.5.52 cents through tractor and laid white slab fencing all along Ac.5.52 cents. On perusing the cross-examination plaintiff/P.W.1 clearly deposed that the suit schedule property was his 1/6th share and he was in possession till 02.10.2019. But on perusing the evidence this Court
APAN100000202010111 found that except the oral evidence of the plaintiff/P.W.1 no reliable evidence or documentary evidence was produced by the plaintiff to believe that till 02.10.2019, he was in possession over the plaint schedule property along with his property which is derived from his father Anjineyulu. The evidence of defendant No.3/D.W.3 is that his father deceased Rangappa who is the second defendant in this suit purchased an extent of Ac.8-24 cents i.e., 1/2 share from the Chalapathi who is the father of the Jayaramulu and Anjineyulu. But in his cross-examination he deposed that he filed O.S.No.117/2021 on the file of this Court against the defendant No.1 and further deposed that the extent in that plaint schedule property in
O.S.No.117/2021 is an extent of Ac.2-74 cents out of Ac.16-48 cents in Sy.No. 686.
This evidence disclose that both the plaintiff and the defendant No.3 both in this suit are claiming an extent of Ac.2-76 cents and Ac.2-74 cents respectively. However it is the burden of the plaintiff to prove that initially he was in possession over the plaint schedule property in this case apart from the contention of the defendant
No.3/D.W.3 contention to succeed his case. But as discussed supra, plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the plaint schedule property. Further as discussed and concluded in the additional Issue No.3, hence this Court not believed that the men of the defendant No.1 dispossessed the plaintiff/P.W.1 from the possession of the plaint schedule property by erecting the fencing and shed laid by the defendants during the pendency of the suit. Since the plaintiff/P.W.1 failed to prove the
additional issue No.4, hence plaintiff is not entitled for damages of Rs.25,000/- per
annum till the removal of the fencing by the defendant No.1. Accordingly this Court conclude that the plaintiff is not entitled for the recovery of possession of plaint schedule property by removing fencing and shed laid by the defendants during the pendency of the suit by way of mandatory injunction and the plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of damages of Rs.25,000/- per annum till the removal of fencing.
Accordingly, Additional issue Nos.4 and 6 are answered against the plaintiff/P.W.1.
APAN100000202010112
36) Additional Issue No.5:
Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
The contention of the defendant No.1 in his additional written statement is that the Dasari Chandramma, Dasari Thirumalesh and Venkatalakshmi are the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.2/Dasari Rangappa and they are the necessary parties to the suit but the plaintiff not made them as parties in the suit. At this juncture this Court is inclined to rely on the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex
Court of India in Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors
AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2033 held that;
We may however clarify that a prayer for declaration will be necessary only if the denial of title by the defendant or challenge to plaintiff's title raises a cloud on the title of plaintiff to the property. A cloud is said to raise over a person's title, when some apparent defect in his title to a property, or when some prima-facie right of a third party over it, is made out or shown. An action for declaration, is the remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property. On the other hand, where the plaintiff has clear title supported by documents, if a trespasser without any claim to title or an interloper without any apparent title, merely denies the plaintiff's title, it does not amount to raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it will not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration and a suit for injunction may be sufficient. Where the plaintiff, believing that defendant is only a trespasser or a wrongful claimant without title, files a mere suit for injunction, and in such a suit, the defendant discloses in his defence the details of the right or title claimed by him, which raises a serious dispute or cloud over plaintiff's title, then there is a need for the plaintiff, to amend the plaint and convert the suit into one for declaration. Alternatively, he may withdraw the suit for bare injunction, with permission of the court to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction. He may file the suit for declaration with
APAN100000202010113 consequential relief, even after the suit for injunction is dismissed, where the suit raised only the issue of possession and not any issue of title.
As per the above Judgment where there is serious dispute or cloud over the plaintiff’s title, suit for declaration is the remedy to remove the cloud on the title of the property against the defendant who denial the title of plaintiff.
37) On perusing the oral and the documentary evidence this Court found that plaintiff’s title was strongly denied by the defendant No.1 basing on the 1/3rd charge in favour of Lakshmidevamma under Ex.B1 and registration sale deed/
Ex.B8. Hence cloud was raised on the title of the plaintiff especially by the defendant No.1. Though deceased defendant No.2 was made the party by the plaintiff, but on perusing the evidence, plaintiff do not claim any relief from the deceased defendant No.2. Further the evidence of D.W.3/Defendant No.4 who is the one of the legal heirs of deceased defendant No.2/Rangappa sailed with the case of plaintiff. Further plaintiff also stated that the defendant No.1 was denying his title, but not by the deceased defendant No.2. Hence this Court conclude that non adding of Legal Representatives of deceased defendant No.2 do not effect the suit as they are not the necessary parties. Hence, additional issue No.3 is answered infavour of the plaintiff.
38) Issue No.1:
Whether the suit can be decreed as prayed for?
Since the plaintiff/P.W.1 failed to prove his case for declaration, possession and mandatory injunction over the plaint schedule property along with the damages which were decided in Additional Issue Nos.3, 4 and 6, hence the plaintiff/P.W.1 is not entitled for the decree as prayed for.
APAN100000202010114
39) ISSUE No.2:
If so, To what relief?
IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 14th day of November, 2025.
Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Penukonda.
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For plaintiff: For defendant:
P.W.1S.Lakshmi PrasadD.W.1 A.R.Naveen Kumar Reddy D.W.2CH.Eswarappa D.W.3D.Thirumalesh
Exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff:
Ex.A1 : Certified copy of compromise petition in OS.No. 12/1978 on the file of Hon'ble
Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu dt. 01-03-1978.
Ex.A2 : Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No. 44/1983 dt. 17-01-1986 Ex.A3 : Certified copy of Decree in O.S.No. 44/1983 dt. 17-01-1986. Ex.A4 : Certified copy of Plaint in O.S.No. 44/1983. Ex.A5 : Certified copy of written statement of 3rd defendant filed in O.S.No.44/1983 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge's Court, Penukonda. Ex.A6 : Certified copy of Written statement of 2nd defendant filed in O.S.No.44/1983 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge's Court, Penukonda. Ex.A7 : Registration extract of sale deed executed by Lakshmidevamma in favour of the 1" defendant dt. 10-12-2007. Ex.A8 : Office copy of notice issued to the 1" defendant and copy sent to S.H.O., Penukonda, S.P., Anantapuramu and Hon'ble C.M., of Andhra Pradesh 28- 08-2019. Ex.A9 : Reply notice got sent by D.1 dt. 06-09-2019 Ex.A10 :Acknowledgment given at Spandana Prajasamasyala Vedika dt.09.09.2019. Ex.A11 :C.D. along with photos (Marked subject to objection by counsel for D1 as there is no description for filing C.D. and photos in the Chief Affidavit. Ex.A12 :Pattadar pass book of plaintiff (Marked at the time of cross examination of D.W.3).
APAN100000202010115
Exhibits marked on behalf of defendants:
Ex.B1: Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No.138/1979 by the Hon’ble Junior
Civil Judge, Penukonda dt.19.03.1979.
Ex.B2: Certified copy of decree in O.S.No.138/1979 by the Hon’ble Junior Civil
Judge, Penukonda dt.19.03.1979.
Ex.B3: Certified copy of dismissal of First Appeal being A.S.No.8/1982 by the
Hon’ble Subordinate Judge, Penukonda dt.25.09.1986.
Ex.B4: Certified copy of dismissal of Second Appeal being S.A.No.2/1987 by the
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh dt.21.06.2002.
Ex.B5: Certified copy of Orders passed in E.P.No.5/1987 in O.S.No.138/1979 by the Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda dt.03.02.1989. Ex.B6: Certified copy of C.R.P. No.1312/1989 against the orders in
E.P.No.5/1987 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh
dt.16.06.1989. Ex.B7: Certified copy of sale deed bearing No.4470/2007 dt.10.12.2007. Ex.B8: Original Rectification deed bearing No.2254/2014 dt.30.10.2017. Ex.B9: Certified copy of M.R.O. proceedings issued by the M.R.O., Penukonda vide proceeding No. R.C.No.338/2008 for issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of D1 dt.27.05.2008. Ex.B10 : Certified copy of R.D.O. proceedings issued by the R.D.O. Penukonda vide proceeding No.D.Dis.No.B/1409/2010 dt.09.06.2011. Ex.B11 : Adangal for Sy.No.686-2 for the fasili year 1421 issued by Deputy Tahsildar dt.19.03.2018. Ex.B12 : Meeseva copy of Adangal for the Sy.No.686 for fasili year 1428 dt.28.07.2020. Ex.B13 : Meeseva copy of Adangal for the Sy.No.686 for fasili year 1429 dt.11.03.2020. Ex.B14 : Meeseva copy of Adangal for the Sy.No.686 for fasili year 1430 dt.28.07.2020. Ex.B15 : Certified copy of endorsement of Spandana issued by Tahsildar, Penukonda dt.09.10.2019. Ex.B16 : Certified copy of report submitted to Sub-Collector, Penukonda issued by Tahsildar, Penukonda. Ex.B17 : Electricity demand notice for service No.307333130111 dt.10.11.2019. Ex.B18 : Electricity demand notice for service No.307333130111 dt.08.12.2019. Ex.B19 : EC for the Sy.No.686 dt.05.03.2008 Ex.B20 : EC for the Sy.No.686 dt.28.12.2020. Ex.B21 : True copy of report submitted to S.H.O., Penukonda by Kristappa (The counsel for the plaintiff raised objection that the report was preferred by G.Kristappa but not by 1st defendant as such it cannot be marked. Hence the document is marked subject to objection). Ex.B22 : Certified copy of endorsement issued by the Tahsildar, Penukonda
APAN100000202010116 basing on the report of Revenue Inspector dt.24.01.2023. Ex.B23 : Pattadar pass book stands in the name of 1st defendant dt.28.05.2008. Ex.B24 : Pattadar pass book stands in the name of 1st defendant bearing No.12B52T009000195. Ex.B25 : Adangal for Sy.No.686 issued by Tahsildar, Penukonda for the fasli year 1419 for calendar year 2009-2010. Ex.B26 : Adangal for Sy.No.686 issued by Tahsildar, Penukonda for the fasli year 1420 for calendar year 2010-2011. Ex.B27 : Adangal for Sy.No.686 issued by Tahsildar, Penukonda for the fasli year 1422 for calendar year 2012-2013. Ex.B28 : Adangal for Sy.No.686 issued by Tahsildar, Penukonda for the fasli year 1425 for calendar year 2015. Ex.B29 : Adangal for Sy.No.686 issued by Tahsildar, Penukonda for the fasli year 1426 for calendar year 2016. Ex.B30 : Adangal for Sy.No.686 issued by Tahsildar, Penukonda for the fasli year 1427 for calendar year 2017. Ex.B31 : Bank statement of D.W.1 for the period from 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2008. Ex.B32 : Bank statement of D.W.1 for the period from 01.01.2009 to 31.12.2009. Ex.B33 : Bank statement of D.W.1 for the period from 01.01.2010 to 31.12.2010. Ex.B34 : Bank statement of D.W.1 for the period from 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2011. Ex.B35 : Bank statement of D.W.1 for the period from 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2012. Ex.B36 : Bank statement of D.W.1 for the period from 01.01.2013 to 31.12.2013. Ex.B37 : Bank statement of D.W.1 for the period from 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014. Ex.B38 : Bank statement of D.W.1 for the period from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016. Ex.B39 : Served copy of legal notice issued by Sri K.S.Rajasekhar, Advocate to Smt K.Jayakala, Advocate. Ex.B40 : Office copy of reply notice issued by Smt K.Jayakala, Advocate to Sri K.S.Rajasekhar. Ex.B41 : Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Chalapathi in favour of D.Rangappa dt.05.09.1984. Ex.B42 : Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Chalapathi in favour of D.Rangappa dt.19.02.1986. Ex.B43 : Certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.117/2021. Ex.B44 : Digital copy of 1-B (ROR) dt.15.04.2024 stands in the name of D.W.3 in Khata No.200 of Penukonda Village for the lands in Sy.Nos.686, 689-1 and 690.
Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Penukonda.