APNE000009782013
Presented on : 14-08-2013 Registered on : 01-04-2014 Decided on : 17-03-2026 Duration : 12 years, 7 months, 3 days
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: NELLORE
Present: L. Thejovathi,
III Additional District Judge, Nellore
Tuesday, this the 17 th day of March, 2026.
***
O.S.No.118/2014
Vankayalapati Sudha Rani, Wife of Late Sathish Chowdary, Aged about 39 years, Resident of Kaveri Nagar, 4th Line, Kothuru Panchayath, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. …Plaintiff
Vs.,
1. Mohammad Ghouse Mohiddin, Son of Khadar Mohiddin, Aged about 40 years, Residing at D.No.23/1354, Tekkemitta, Nellore Town.
2. Varadha Sridhar, Son of Ramamohan Rao, Aged about 42 years, Residing at D.No.24-149, Mulapet, Nellore Town.
3. Shodavaram Suneel Sundar Raj, Son of Late Dayanandam, Aged about 52 years, Residing at D.No.8/1/41, Anakatta Road, Nellore Town.
4. Kolakalam Viswendra Kumar, Son of Ramakrishna, Aged about 45 years, Residing at D.No.23/258 (2), Fathekhanpet, Nellore Town.… Defendants
This suit is coming on 06.02.2026 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri V.Sankara Narayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri B.Sreenivasan, Advocate for the 1st defendant and Sri N.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for defendants 2 to 4 and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :-
2/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
J U D G M E N T
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking cancellation of registered sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of 1st defendant under Document No.1977 of 2010 dated 22.09.2010 which was obtained by playing fraud on the plaintiff by the 1st defendant, for cancellation of registered sale deeds executed by the 1st defendant in favour of defendants 2 to 4 dated 27.09.2010 and 15.11.2010 respectively, for a direction to the defendants to pay
Rs.15,00,000/- to the plaintiff by way of damages for causing loss to her estate by creating false documents and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property in any manner, for costs and other reliefs.
2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follow
Father of the plaintiff executed a registered settlement deed in relation to the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff, keeping life interest with him and thereafter with absolute rights in favour of the plaintiff under Document No.1142/2001 dated 19.12.2001. The 1st defendant is the close friend of husband of the plaintiff and on the request of the 1st defendant to execute nominal registered sale deed in relation to plaint schedule property in his favour, on the ground that a college for B-
Pharmacy was sanctioned in his favour for which he has to show the property in his name towards security for the said College and if he has no property the College will not be granted and as already his proposal was accepted by the Government, showing property in the name of 1st defendant alone is remaining and also on the representation of the 1st defendant that he will execute a document in favour of the plaintiff on
Rs.100/- stamp paper with a promise to re register the plaint schedule
3/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
property in favour of plaintiff and with the additional promise that till then, he will give 50 % of the profit on such establishment of the said college, and assuring that he will show the sanction order to the plaintiff and her husband immediately after completion of the order by the Government on showing the security, the plaintiff and her husband accepted the proposal of the 1st defendant purely believing the words of the 1st defendant and on 20.09.2010 an agreement was executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff on the above said condition and then the plaintiff and her husband believing the words of the 1st defendant, executed a registered sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant mentioning the sale consideration as Rs.15,00,000/- and actually, no consideration was paid and the possession was also not delivered to the 1st defendant under the said registered sale deed and the sale deed came into existence only under the above circumstances and the 2nd defendant signed as first attestor who was brought by the 1st defendant along with another attestor.
Subsequently on 28.02.2011 husband of the plaintiff died and and she became in deep distress and since June 2011 she started contacting the 1st defendant about her property and the 1st defendant going on postponing about the performance of his promise under the agreement
dated 20.09.2010 and about the establishment of the College with sweet
words and since about 5 months, the 1st defendant hide himself and did not even reply the plaintiff and hence the plaintiff suspected the 1st defendant and recently in the last week of June, 2013 the plaintiff made enquiries about the plaint schedule property and to her dismay she came to know that the 1st defendant within 5 days of the plaintiff’s registration to the 1st defendant, he alienated an extent of Ac.2.00, out of the plaint schedule property in favour of defendants 2 and 3 under registered sale deed dated 27.09.2010 and an extent of Ac.1.00 was sold to the 4th
4/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
defendant under Registered sale deed dated 15.11.2010, but when the 1st defendant himself has no possession under his document, the question of alleged delivery of possession of total extent of 3 acres to the defendants 2 to 4 under the said documents doesn't arise.
(ii) The 1st defendant played fraud on the plaintiff and her husband only to extract the plaint schedule property belonging to the plaintiff, taking advantage of close intimacy with the husband of the plaintiff and the said fraud was detected by the plaintiff in the last week of
June 2013 after applying the certified copies of the documents. As the plaintiff executed registered sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant nominally without consideration, she never delivered possession thereof to the 1st defendant and still the possession of the plaint schedule property is with the plaintiff and the original documents are also with the plaintiff including the 1st defendant's original as xerox copy thereof was supplied to the 1st defendant by the plaintiff after receiving the original documents from the Registrar office. The plaintiff also availed crop loan from State Bank of India, Indukurpet branch, even prior to the execution of the document in favour of the 1st defendant and under any circumstances the document of the 1st defendant was never acted upon and the 1st attestor of the document of the 1st defendant, who is the 2nd defendant herein with full knowledge of all these things obtained registered document without verifying the original document and as such, all the defendants have colluded together and brought the sale deed such a fraud without informing the same to the plaintiff. The documents standing in the name of the defendants are nothing but the outcome of the fraud played by the 1st defendant on the plaintiff and hence those documents are liable for cancellation and the suit is well within limitation as the fraud was detected by the plaintiff in the last week of June 2013
5/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
after applying certified copies thereof and as there is no dispute about the title of the plaintiff, there is no need for the relief of declaration and as the plaintiff suffered a lot due to the fabrication of the registered document by all the defendants to knock away the property, the plaintiff is also claiming
Rs.15,00,000/- for damages caused to her estate. Hence the suit.
3.The 1st defendant filed his written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and contending as follows:
This defendant is a bonafide purchaser of the plaint schedule property having purchased the same from the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 22.09.2010 for valuable consideration and took possession of the same on the date of sale itself and thereafter this defendant sold 2 acres out of 5 acres of the plaint schedule property to the defendants 2 and 3 for valuable consideration under registered sale deed dated 27.09.2010 and sold 1 acre in favour of 4th defendant under
Registered sale deed dated 15.11.2010 for valuable consideration and this defendant along with defendants 2 to 4 leased out 5 acres to the plaintiff for 1 year only and the lease deed for the entire 5 acres of the land shown in the plaint schedule was prepared on a Non Judicial stamp which was signed by the plaintiff as lessee on 20.12.2011 and as per the terms and conditions of the said lease deed, the plaintiff undertook to pay yearly lease amount of Rs. 25,000/- for each acre and the said lease deed was also signed by the defendants 1 to 4 as lessors and thus, the plaintiff is only a tenant and has no right to dispute the ownership of the defendants and this defendant was also granted pattadar passbook and he is paying cist to the Government regularly.
(ii) The defendant also contended that he borrowed a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 30.11.2012 for his necessities and in
6/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
consideration thereof the defendant signed blank promissory note and towards the security of the said debt, he deposited his original document with the plaintiff and after completion of lease, this defendant along with defendants 2 to 4 demanded the plaintiff to vacate the plaint schedule property, but the plaintiff instead of vacating the scheduled property taking advantage of possession of original registered document, to knock away her property, she filed this suit with false allegations and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4.The 2 to 4 defendants filed their written statement, denying the allegations made in the plaint and contending as follows :
The father of the plaintiff executed a registered settlement deed in relation to the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff, reserving his life interest with the condition that he has no right to raise any loans on the scheduled property and it is clearly mentioned in the said settlement deed that the plaintiff will be absolute owner only after his death and during his lifetime, he will be entitled to enjoy the profit derived from the scheduled property of 5 acres and the father of the plaintiff actually died on 14.12.2011, but the plaintiff managed to obtain pattaadar passbook for the entire extent of 5 acres covered by the said settlement deed by producing fake and forged death certificate prior to June 2002 itself before the MRO, Thotapally Gudur, Nellore District and thereby cheated him and thus obtained pattadar passbook in the name of plaintiff.
though her father was actually alive during the year 2002. The plaintiff also cheated the Manager of State Bank of India to raise loans basing on such wrong passbook obtained by fraud and thereby cheated the Bank
Manager, showing that father of the plaintiff died and the plaintiff became absolute owner of the property. The 1st defendant might have knowing all
7/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
these facts and abetted the plaintiff in the acts of cheating by producing false and forged death certificate of father of the plaintiff. The defendants 2 to 4 learn and believe that the husband of the plaintiff by name Satish
Kumar was living away from the plaintiff since several years because of the close contacts between the plaintiff and 1st defendant and the plaintiff being a Post Graduate who was working as a Lecturer in Kora Institute,
Nellore could not have believed the representation of the 1st defendant as he is not at all educated not even passed 10th class could put up proposal to start B-Pharmacy College at Nellore in his name without proper education or any knowledge on pharmacy side. The so called agreement dated 20.09.2010 executed by the defendant no. 1 in favour of the plaintiff is utterly false and the signature of the defendant no. 1 in the said agreement must be forged or as a result false document is brought into existence in support of false version of the plaintiff. When the very purpose of executing sale deed nominally by the plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant is to keep the sale deed as security with the government for sanctioning B Pharmacy College in favour of the 1st defendant, the version of the plaintiff in the plaint is that the plaintiff is in possession of the original sale deed in favour of the defendant no. 1 with the plaintiff itself and the same original sale deed is being filed into court along with the plaint totally falsifies the entire version now taken by the plaintiff. The present suit is a collusive suit between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant who are admittedly close friends and for this reason, the original sale deed dated 22.09.2010 relating to the schedule property executed by the plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant is given to the plaintiff just before filing of the suit by the result of conspiracy to defeat the interests of D2 to
D4 who purchased 3 acres of land out of the schedule property bonafidely believing that the 1st defendant is the real owner of the property. In fact
8/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
there is a clear endorsement in the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendants 2 to 4 that the original sale deed for the entire schedule property for 5 acres by the plaintiff in favour of 1st defendant is retained by 1st defendant by supplying xerox copies with the endorsement of 1st defendant in his own handwriting at the bottom of the page No.4, since some more land of another 2 acres is to be sold by the 1st defendant, the plaintiff failed to mention the date of death of her father on which date the plaintiff became absolute owner and the death certificate of her father is also not filed and in fact father of the plaintiff died only on 14.12.2011 after executing another settlement relating to Ac.2.07 cents adjacent to plaint schedule land on west reserving his life estate on 10.02.2011 mentioning his pattadar passbook for total extent of Ac.7.07 cents. The land covered by schedule mentioned property of Ac.5.00 and Ac.2.07 cents covered by the second settlement deed and this clearly indicates that the father of the plaintiff is the owner of entire Ac.7.07 cents including the plaint schedule land till his death on 14.12.2011 and in the second settlement deed dated 10.02.2011 executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of plaintiff, the 1st defendant signed as a witness in the Sub
Registrar Office, Indukurpet and it clearly shows that the plaintiff obtained pattadar passbook relating to the plaint schedule property in the month of
June 2002 itself, which is an act of cheating the Government by false representation that her father died prior to June, 2002 itself.
(ii) The defendants also contended that the plaintiff knowing fully well that she has no absolute right to sell the land as her father was alive, but on subsequent date i.e. 14.12.2011 when actually her father died, and the plaintiff became absolute owner of the entire plaint schedule property, the sale deeds executed by plaintiff in favour of 1st defendant
9/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
and the consequential sale deeds in favour of defendants 2 and 3 and also the defendant No.4 became valid and the plaintiff is not entitled to seek cancellation of the said sale deeds. After the actual death of father of plaintiff when D2 to D4 questioned D1, a lease deed for the entire 5 acres of land was prepared on a non judicial stamp which was signed by the plaintiff as lessee on 20.12.2011 undertaking to pay yearly lease amount of 25,000/- per acre and in the same lease deed the plaintiff₹ referred the subsequent sale deeds executed by D1 in favour of D2 to D4 and asserted that she has no objection for such sales. The said lease deed was also signed by D1 to D4 as lessors and subsequent to filing of this suit, D2 to D4 has sent a statutory notice under Section 106 of
Transfer of Property Act, requiring her to hand over the land relating to D2 to D4 on or before 31.12.2014 as the lease is terminated. The plaintiff got issued a reply notice denying the lease agreement with false allegations.
But the plaintiff has no right to dispute the ownership of her lessors as a tenant and as such, the suit is liable for dismissal.
5.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues have been framed for trial :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of registered sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the 1 st defendant under document No.1977/2010,
dated 22.09.2010 of S.R.O., Indukurupet as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of registered sale deed executed by 1 st defendant in favour of defendants 2 and 3 under document No.2030/2010, dated 27.09.2010 of S.R.O., Indukurupet as prayed for?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of registered sale deed executed by 1 st defendant in favour of 4 th defendant under document No.2437/2010,
dated 15.11.2010 of S.R.O., Indukurupet as prayed for?
10/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages of rupees
15 lakhs from the defendants as prayed for?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent
injunction against the defendants as prayed for?
6. To what relief?
6.During the course of trial on behalf of the plaintiff, Pws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs A1 to A22 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW.s 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B8 were marked.
7.Heard both the counsel and perused the written argument filed for both the parties.
8.The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted in his arguments that there is no specific denial of the plea of the plaintiff regarding fraud played by the defendants in the written statement and as such, it is deemed that the defendants admitted the fraud played by them and in the cross examination of P.W.1 she was not questioned regarding her possession over the suit schedule property as well as the documents of herself as well as the document of the 1st defendant and as such, it is deemed that the document executed by the plaintiff in favour of 1st defendant is a nominal sale deed. The 1st defendant though contended that when he borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff, he handed over his original title deed to the plaintiff, he did not prove either the borrowal of amount or discharge of the said amount to the plaintiff.
(ii) He further submitted that according to D1, he borrowed
Rs.1,00,000/- immediately after sale to him and so there is no capacity to
D1 to purchase the land of plaintiff for Rs.15,00,000/- even as mentioned in the document and nowhere D1 stated his qualification. But the defendants 2 to 4 stated in their written statement that 1st defendant
11/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
studied up to Intermediate and is not a Graduate even. He also submitted that within 5 days of sale deed of the 1st defendant, defendant No.2 purchased for same amount and within 2 months entire property was transferred by 1st defendant to defendants 2 to 4 and there is no explanation as to the reason for transferring the entire land to the defendants 2 to 4 by 1st defendant. DWs admitted that no rents were paid by the plaintiff, but no action was taken against the plaintiff for not paying the rents which shows that the alleged lease is not correct and even the notice for eviction is also issued during pendency of the suit and no suit is also filed against the plaintiff for eviction. The plaintiff also kept the document in Co-operative bank in a loan and she discharged the said loan during the pendency of the suit and Ex.A16 shows that the said mortgage was released in the year 2022 and so when the property is under mortgage how D1 will purchase the property without getting original document or without knowing the mortgage over the said property. He also stated that all the original documents are with the plaintiff and the possession of the property is also with the plaintiff, which clearly proves that the document executed by plaintiff in favour of D1 is only a nominal sale deed originated due to the fraud played by the defendants.
9.The learned counsel for the defendants 2 to 4 submitted that the plaintiff has to seek for declaration that the sale deeds of defendant 2 to 4 as null and void. But the plaintiff has not sought for the said relief and according to the plaintiff, 1st defendant after showing the property as security to the college will reconvey the property. But it is not known how 1st defendant can reconvey the property, as it will be under security and the said contract is itself void and forbidden by law. He also submitted that when the plaintiff herself is at fraud how can she allege fraud on the
12/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
part of defendants. He also submitted that the husband of plaintiff died in the year 2009 itself but plaintiff says that he died in 2011 and the transaction is in 2010. PW2 also admitted that plaintiff and her husband were residing separately and several criminal cases were there against plaintiff as she produced fake death certificates of her husband and claimed amount and there is no evidence from the plaintiff against D2 to
D4 and the plaintiff is a Post graduate and knows the court proceedings as criminal cases are also there against her and so she would not have kept quiet for so many years if really she is innocent and as per Section 17 of the Contract Act, when two persons are at fraud, they cannot ask for cancellation of the document.
10. ISSUE NO.1 TO 3:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of registered sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the 1 st defendant under document No.1977/2010,
dated 22.09.2010 of S.R.O., Indukurupet as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of registered sale deed executed by 1 st defendant in favour of defendants 2 and 3 under document No.2030/2010, dated 27.09.2010 of S.R.O., Indukurupet as prayed for?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of registered sale deed executed by 1 st defendant in favour of 4 th defendant under document No.2437/2010,
dated 15.11.2010 of S.R.O., Indukurupet as prayed for?
According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property originally belonged to her father and he executed a registered settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property, retaining life interest with him and vested reminder to the plaintiff and the 1st defendant being the close friend of her husband requested for
13/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
executing registered sale deed in his name in respect of the plaint schedule property for keeping the property as security for obtaining sanction of B Pharmacy college, promising to re register the property to the plaintiff after sanctioning the college and to pay 50% of the profit on the college till he execute registered sale deed again in favour of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff and her husband having accepted the proposal of the 1st defendant, the plaintiff executed a registered sale deed dated 22.09.2010 in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of plaint schedule property which is an extent of 5 acres of land situated in South Amuluru village, TP Gudur Mandal and the 1st defendant also executed an agreement with his proposal as to re registering the property and giving profit to the plaintiff on the college and later her husband died on 28.02.2011 and inspite of several requests made by the plaintiff, the 1st defendant having postponed to perform his promise under the agreement, did not even reply to the plaintiff, for which, the plaintiff made enquiries and came to know that the 1st defendant sold the property to the defendants 2 to 4 within few days of executing the sale deed in favour of
D1 and since the 1st defendant obtained the sale deed by playing fraud to extract the plaint schedule property, the said sale deed and the sale deeds executed by D1 in favour of D2 to D4 are not valid and liable for cancellation.
11.On the other hand, it is the contention of the 1st defendant that he is a bonafide purchaser and purchased the property from the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 22.09.2010 for a valuable con- sideration and took possession of the same on the same day and there- after, he sold 2 acres out of 5 acres to the defendants 2 and 3 under reg- istered sale deed dated 27.09.2010 and 1 acre to the 4th defendant under
14/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
registered sale deed dated 15.11.2010 for valuable consideration and later himself and the other defendants 2 to 4 leased out the total extent of 5 acres to the plaintiff for one year only and a lease deed was also exe- cuted by the plaintiff on condition to pay Maktha of Rs.25,000/- per acre and thus, the plaintiff is only a tenant and has no right over the schedule property and the 1st defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 30.11.2012 and signed a blank promissory note as security for the debt, and he also deposited his original documents with the plaintiff and when the defendants 1 to 4 demanded the plaintiff to vacate the schedule property on completion of lease period, the plaintiff instead of vacating the property, filed this suit taking advantage of possession of original documents with her.
12.Whereas, the defendants 2 to 4 contended that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant colluded together and having sold the property, the 1st defendant got filed this suit through the plaintiff as if she executed nominal sale deed in his favour and the plaintiff though has no right to sell the property, executed sale deed in favour of D1, but however since the father of the plaintiff died on 14.12.2011 and the plaintiff became absolute owner of the entire 5 acres of land, the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of D1 and the consequential sale deeds in favour of D2 to D4 became valid and when the defendants 2 to 4 questioned D1, the plaintiff executed a lease deed for entire 5 acres of land agreeing to pay lease amount of Rs.25,000/- per acre, wherein, she also asserted that she has no objection for the sales in favour of D1 and D2 to D4 and as such, the plaintiff has no right to dispute the ownership of all defendants 2 to 4.
13.The plaintiff, in order prove her case, got herself examined as
P.W.1 and filed her chief affidavit, wherein she reiterated the same con-
15/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
tents as mentioned in her plaint. She got marked Exs.A1 to A22 the origi- nal registered sale deed executed in favour of 1st defendant, certified copies of registered sale deeds, settlement deed, pattadar pass book, loan account pass book, cist receipt, office copy of legal notice, form 1B, original registered settlement deeds, title deed, demand notice issued by the NDCC bank, discharge receipt, statement of account, orders of the
RDO, and the original receipts issued by the Chief Executive Officer, TP
Gudur respectively. The plaintiff also got examined one third party by name Raja Ravindra Babu as P.W.2. He also supported the version of the plaintiff and deposed that on the request of the 1st defendant for getting the property as security for sanctioning B Pharmacy college, the plaintiff executed the sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant without any consid- eration and the 1st defendant executed an agreement on 20.09.2010 promising to re execute a document in the name of plaintiff within one year from the date of sanctioning and will pay 50% of income to the plain- tiff and he attested the said agreement executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff.
14.The defendants 1 to 4 got examined themselves as Dws.1 to 4 respectively and got marked Exs.B1 to B8 in the evidence of DWs.2 and 4 i.e., sale deed executed in favour of D2 and D3, Encumbrance cer- tificate, office copy of legal notice, reply notice, settlement deed, pattadar pass book, original registered sale deed executed by D1 in favour of D4, pattadar pass book stands in the name of D4 and D2 respectively.
15.Admittedly the plaint schedule property originally belonged to the father of the plaintiff Jaya Ramaiah. It is also an admitted fact that the said Jaya Ramaiah executed a registered settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff, however keeping life interest with him and vested reminder to the plaintiff. It is also an admitted fact that father of the plaintiff died on
16/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
14.12.2011. Admittedly by the date the plaintiff executed Ex.A1 sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant, father of the plaintiff was alive and the plaintiff had no absolute right over the plaint schedule property, as her father retained life interest in respect of the suit schedule property with him.
16.However, though the executant of the document has no title over the property, in respect of which, a document was executed, if she acquires right or title over the said property, subsequent to the execution of the said document, the said document becomes valid at the option of the purchaser. Thus though the plaintiff had no title over the plaint schedule property, by the date she executed Ex.A1 sale deed, in favour of
D1, since subsequent to the execution of the said document, father of the plaintiff died and on his death, as per the settlement deed executed by him, the plaintiff acquires title over the said property, if the 1st defendant i.e. the purchaser intends to validate the sale, and the contract still subsists and the property was transferred for consideration, the said document becomes valid, as per Section 43 of Transfer of Property Act as it says :
Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, embodies
the doctrine of " feeding the grant by estoppel." It states
that if a person fraudulently or erroneously represents
they are authorized to transfer immovable property and
acts for consideration, the transfer can subsequently
operate on any interest the transferor acquires in that
property later, provided the contract is still subsisting.
However here in this case the plaintiff says that the 1st defendant obtained Ex.A1 sale deed by playing fraud, without any consideration and by deceiving the plaintiff and her husband that he requires the property for showing it as security for sanctioning B pharmacy College in his name. Now let us examine whether the sale
17/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
deed i.e. Exhibit A1 was executed by the plaintiff in furtherance of the fraud played by the 1st defendant or it was executed intending to sell the schedule property to the 1st defendant.
17.P.W.1 admitted in her cross examination, that it is recited in
Ex.A1 that after receiving sale consideration, the property was delivered.
But she added that as the document is obtained for the purpose of running college on their request, the same is recited in the said document. P.W.1 also admitted that they obtained loan by mortgaging the plaint schedule property about 25 years ago and by then her father was alive. She denied the suggestion that though her father was alive she obtained loan stating that her father died. P.W.1 also filed the discharge receipt issued by the TP Gurur PCS marked as Ex.A16. As could be seen from Exhibit A16 the discharge receipt, it shows that the loan was obtained not only by the plaintiff but it was obtained by the plaintiff, her father and mother Vattikunta Jayaramaiah and Vattikunta
Krishnavenamma in the year 1997 itself. So the said allegation that the plaintiff obtained loan though her father was alive stating that her father died is false. PW.1 admitted that a case was pending against her for the offence under sec.420 IPC in CC.769 of 2017 alleging that she received the insurance amount through the beneficiaries claiming as if she is dead.
Simply because a case is pending against her, it cannot be said that she committed the said offence.
18.PW1 admitted in her cross-examination that she did not make any enquiries personally about the sanctioning of B-pharmacy
College, but her husband made the enquiries. She pleaded ignorance whether B-Pharmacy College was sanctioned in the name of 1st defendant or not. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that since she has already
18/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
sold the property, she did not pay the loans. But, 1st defendant stated in his cross-examination that since the plaintiff obtained loan she herself discharged the said loan. Ex.A16 the original discharge receipt also clearly shows that the loan was obtained by the plaintiff and her parents and it was discharged in the year 2022 long after the filing of the suit and since, it is a original registered receipt, it cannot be said that it is a created document for the purpose of this suit as suggested by the defendants to the plaintiff.
19.P.W.1 denied the suggestion that Exhibit A17 the no-dues certificate issued by the TP Godur Primary Agricultural Cooperative
Society does not pertain to the suit schedule property. But, it shows that the said certificate was issued in respect of the loan dated 21.10.1997 vide loan No.73 of 1997 which is referred in Exhibit A16 the discharge receipt, which particularly shows that the said receipt pertains to the plaint schedule property. Exhibits A16, A17, A18 shows that by the date the plaintiff executed Ex.A1, the loan was subsisting i.e., the property was under a mortgage. In the cross examination of PW1, it was also elicited that by the date of Exhibit A1, her original title deed and link documents were in bank. It shows that the 1st defendant and the other defendants were having knowledge that the property was under mortgage by the date of execution of Ex.A1.
20.Though the plaintiff says that the 1st defendant executed an agreement on 20.09.2010 i.e., two days prior to the execution of Exhibit
A1 sale deed by her in favour of D1, since it is an unregistered agreement, it was not marked on behalf of plaintiff and as such it cannot be taken into consideration. P.W.1 admitted in her case examination, that except the said agreement, there is no proof to show that she executed
Ex.A1 nominally. The plaintiff though examined P.W.2 one of the attestor
19/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
of the said agrement, since the agreement itself is not marked, the evidence of P.W.2 regarding the said agreement can not be taken into consideration.
21.However, P.W.2 also deposed that the plaintiff executed the sale deed without receiving any consideration believing the words of 1st defendant that it is necessary for showing as security for sanctioning B
Pharmacy college. Admittedly, the original document of D1 i.e., the registered sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of D1 and all the other link documents of the plaintiff are with the plaintiff only. Even, the original document that was executed in favour of the 1st defendant i.e.
Ex.A1 was also not taken by the 1st defendant and he says that it was again handed over to the plaintiff when he borrowed an amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- from the plaintiff in the year 2012. But except the oral statement of the 1st defendant that he borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff, there is no document or any evidence to prove the same. Apart from it, when the 1st defendant says that he paid Rs.15,00,000/- under
Ex.A1 on 22.09.2010 and received Rs.9,00,000/- from the defendants 2 to 4 by selling 3 acres out of 5 acres, in September and November 2010, there is no meaning in saying that he borrowed only Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff that too by keeping the property worth Rs.15,00,000/- with her.
22.Apart from it, the 1st defendant obtained Exhibit A1 sale deed on 22.09.2010. Within 5 days of obtaining the said sale deed, he sold 2 acres to the defendants 2 and 3 under registered sale deed i.e. on 27.09.2010 for the same sale consideration, for which he obtained the property from the plaintiff. D.W.1 also admitted in his cross examination, that on the fifth day of sale transaction, he sold 2 acres out of 5 acres to
20/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
the defendants 2 and 3. He further admitted that he spent Rs.1,00,000/- and odd towards registration expenses of his sale deed and he sold the property for the same sale consideration for which, he purchased. He further admitted that he also sold 1 acre to D4 within 2 months of his purchase and the second sale deed was executed by him in favour of one
Sridhar, who is the 1st attestor of his sale deed.
23.The 2nd defendant is Varadha Sridhar and he and the third defendant obtained Exhibit B1 sale deed from the 1st defendant on 27.09.2010 which is within 5 days of Exhibit A1 sale deed obtained by the 1st defendant from the plaintiff. Admittedly the 2nd defendant Varada
Sridhar is the attestor of the sale deed obtained by the 1st defendant. It shows that the 2nd defendant has got knowledge about the sale transaction i.e. the execution of Exhibit A1 sale deed by the plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant. Admittedly either the 1st defendant or the defendants 2 to 4 did not obtain EC before purchasing the property from the plaintiff. All the defendants say that the plaintiff herself handed over the EC and as such they did not obtain EC before purchasing the property. Any person who intends to purchase a property has to enquire and obtain EC in order to know whether the property to be purchased is free from encumbrances or not. But the evidence of DWs 1 to 4 that they did not obtain EC and they have seen the EC shown by the plaintiff
before purchasing the property, throws any amount of doubt on the
genuineness of the sale transactions with defendants 1 to 4.
24.According to the defendants, the 1st defendant purchased 5 acres from the plaintiff and he sold 2 acres out of 5 acres to the defendants 2 and 3. Both D.Ws.2 and 3 admitted in their cross examination that they obtained sale deed within 5 days of the sale deed
21/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
of D1. D.W.3 further admitted that he did not get the land surveyed before purchasing the property and he purchased the property for the same sale consideration as purchased by D1. If really the 1st defendant purchased the property from the plaintiff, it is not known, how and why he sold major extent of the property to the defendants 2 to 4 within few days of his purchase from the plaintiff. No explanation or reason is mentioned by the 1st defendant for selling 3 acres to the defendants 2 to 4, that too for the same sale consideration for which he purchased from the plaintiff.
According to the 1st defendant he borne more than 1,00,000 towards₹ registration expenses for obtaining sale deed from the plaintiff. When he born that much of amount towards registration expenses, it is not known why he sold the property for the same sale consideration, without even including the registration expenses. It also throws any amount of doubt on the genuineness of the sale transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4.
25.When the defendants 2 and 3 purchased only 2 acres out of 5 acres for which the 1st defendant obtained sale deed, they would have got surveyed the land and separated the said 2 acres from the entire 5 acres of land either before or after purchasing the said property from the 1st defendant. But, admittedly the defendants 2 and 3 did not get the land surveyed and separated from the entire extent. Even the defendants 2 to 4 also did not obtain the original sale deed of the 1st defendant or the link documents while purchasing the property. Even if it is taken that they did not obtain the link document i.e., the original sale deed of the 1st defendant, they would have obtained the link documents of the plaintiff at least. DW2 admitted in his cross examination that the 1st defendant handed over the certified copy of settlement deed executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff saying that the original was
22/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
misplaced. But it is the suggestion given to the plaintiff that the link documents were in bank by the date of Exhibit A1 sale deed obtained by the 1st defendant from the plaintiff. DW2 also admitted in his cross- examination that the original sale deed of D1 is in possession of the plaintiff and Ex.B2 the encumbrance certificate was obtained subsequent to his purchase. He further stated that he did not obtain EC as the plaintiff herself handed over the copy of EC to him. It is not known how the plaintiff handed over the EC to the 2nd defendant who purchased the property from the 1st defendant but not from the plaintiff.
26.DW2 further admitted that he is an Advocate by profession and he know the procedure to be adopted for misplacing of the documents. Being an advocate the 2nd defendant without either getting the land surveyed, without obtaining EC, without knowing the encumbrances over the property, without even knowing the right and title of the plaintiff i.e. his vendors vendor over the plaint schedule property i.e.
the property purchased by them, and without even obtaining the link documents from his vendor, obtained sale lead from the 1st defendant. It also all throws any amount of doubt on the genuineness of the said sale transaction between the 1st defendant and the defendants 2 and 3.
27.The 4th defendant as DW4 also admitted in his cross examination that he obtained sale deed for an extent of 1 acre within 2 months of the D1's sale deed. He further admitted that he had not got surveyed the land before purchasing the property and he purchased the property for the same sale consideration as purchased by 1st defendant. It shows that even after 2 months of obtaining sale deed from the plaintiff the 1st defendant sold 1 acre out of 5 acres to the 4th defendant also for the same sale consideration for which he obtained the sale deed from the plaintiff. It also creates doubt on the said transaction.
23/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
28.Coming to the possession over the plaint schedule property, admittedly the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of 5 acres of plaint schedule property even before or subsequent to the sale deeds of D1 to D4. DWs 1 to 4 admitted that the plaint schedule property is still in possession of the plaintiff. The defendants 1 to 4 say that they leased out the entire extent of 5 acres to the plaintiff as she has been raising fish ponds in the adjacent land belonged to the plaintiff and a lease agreement was also entered into by the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4 to that effect for a period of one year initially on payment of maktha of 25,000/- per acre. ₹
29.All the defendants 1 to 4 i.e. D.Ws 1 to 4 admitted in their cross-examination that they did not file any document to show that they obtained possession of the property purchased by them and did not file any document to show that they leased out the land to the plaintiff or even to show that they received the lease amount from the plaintiff. DW4 though filed Exhibit B7 Pattaadar Passbook, admitted in his cross examination that no proceedings were issued to mutate his name and basing on his sale deed only the pattadar passbook was issued to him.
He further admitted that the plaintiff filed Exhibit A19 to show that the pattadar passbook issued in the name of D1 was cancelled. DW4 further admitted that the pattadar passbook will be given to the person in possession of the property and the plaint schedule property was in possession of the plaintiff, even by the date of issuance of Exhibit B7 pattadar passbook.
30.The defendants 1 to 4 though stated that they leased out the property to the plaintiff under a lease agreement, did not file any document to show the same. Admittedly no registered lease deed was
24/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
entered into by the defendants 1 to 4 with the plaintiff. Though they tried to confront a document to the plaintiff in her cross-examination. She denied that the signature on the said document does not belong to her.
when the defendants contended that they leased out the property to the plaintiff, without filing any lease deed, they cannot contend that the property is in possession of the plaintiff as lessee but not as an absolute owner of the property. If really the defendants leased out the property to the plaintiff they would have obtained registered lease deed from the plaintiff. But except the oral statement of the defendants 1 to 4, there is no proof to show that the defendants leased out the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff.
31.Apart from it, it is the contention of the defendants in their written statement that they let out the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff under lease agreement dated 20.12.2011 for 1 year period on a maktha of ₹ 25,000/- per acre and on completion of lease period, the defendants 1 to 4 demanded the plaintiff to vacate the plaint schedule property and keeping the said aspect in mind, the plaintiff filed this suit.
Defendants 2 to 4 in their chief examination stated that the plaintiff requested them to let out the property purchased by them under the registered sale deed for fish culture and hence, they agreed for the same and thereby all the defendants together have leased out the total extent of 5 acres to the plaintiff. But they did not state that the said lease was only for 1 year. The 1st defendant in his written statement stated that the entire extent of 5 acres was leased out to the plaintiff only for 1 year. But, the defendants 1 to 4 did not state in their chief examination that the said lease is only for 1 year. They stated in their chief examination that they let out the property to the plaintiff on a maktha of 25,000/- per acre and₹
25/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
after expiry of lease period, when they demanded the plaintiff to hand over possession of the lands, the plaintiff refused and hence they were constrained to issue a legal notice to the plaintiff on 18.06.2014 on behalf of defendants 2 to 4. Ex.B3 is the said legal notice got issued by the defendants 2 to 4.
32.As could be seen from Exhibit B3 notice, it contains that the defendants leased out the entire extent of 5 acres to the plaintiff on 20.12.2011 for a period of 1 year ending with 31.12.2012 and after completion of 1 year on the request of the plaintiff, the lease was continued for 1 more year upto 31.12.2013 and again at the request of the plaintiff the lease was renewed upto 31.12.2014 since the plaintiff promptly paid the lease amount, but, later they came to know that the plaintiff sold some land abutting to the schedule property to her brother and filed this suit and as such, they got issued the said notice. But, nowhere either in the written statements or in the chief examination affidavits of defendants 1 to 4, they stated that the lease was renewed upto 2014 at the request of the plaintiff. It is also not there in the notice got issued by the defendants 2 to 4 that after completion of 1 year when they demanded the plaintiff to vacate and hand over possession of the lands, the plaintiff refused. For the first time in the chief examination, the defendants 2 to 4 stated that after completion of the lease period for 1 year they demanded the plaintiff to hand over possession, for which she refused.
33.DWs.2 to 4 admitted in their cross examination, that they got issued legal notice to the plaintiff during pendency of the suit demanding her to vacate the premises or else action will be taken against her. They also further admitted that the plaintiff got issued reply notice to the said
26/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
notice. The defendants 2 to 4 i.e.,DWs.2 to DW4 further categorically admitted in their cross examination, that they did not take any steps to get the plaintiff vacated from the premises. DW2 to DW4 further admitted that the plaintiff has not been paying the lease amount to them from the date of issuance of notice by them. The said notice was issued in the year 2014 i.e, immediately after filing the suit by the plaintiff. Though it was issued in the year 2014, till now, admittedly, the defendants 1 to 4 did not take any steps against the plaintiff for eviction or for recovery of arrears of maktha. If really the defendants purchased the property, by paying sale consideration, they would not kept quite without taking any steps for recovery of, either possession of the plaint schedule property or arrears of maktha from the plaintiff. It also creates suspicion on the genuineness of the sale transactions with the defendants 1 to 4.
34.D.W.3 admitted in his cross examination, that he did not obtain EC before purchasing the property since he had seen the EC obtained by the plaintiff on 18.09.2010. He further admitted that the said
EC was also not filed before the court. DW3 further admitted that the plaintiff filed documents showing her possession over the plaint schedule property and he had not seen the original title deeds of the plaintiff till now. He pleaded ignorance of the discharge receipt filed by the plaintiff.
But DW2 admitted that the plaintiff filed no dues certificate and all the original documents, by discharging the mortgage amount, before the court after issuing notice to his advocate. Adding to it DW2 stated that the plaintiff obtained loans by producing fake death certificate of her father, even when her father was alive and on the pressure of the bank officials she paid the amount and obtained the documents. But as could be seen from Exhibit A16 the discharge receipt, it shows that the plaintiff and her
27/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
parents together mortgaged the property and obtained loan, but not the plaintiff alone showing her father as died. The said evidence of DW2 is proved to be false by Exhibit A16, the discharge receipt.
35.D.W1 categorically admitted that the plaintiff is in possession of the entire suit schedule property even till today. Though according to him, he paid the entire sale consideration to the plaintiff, did not take possession of the property from the plaintiff, did not obtain link documents from the plaintiff, did not even put any condition to discharge the mortgage, that was pending over the plaint schedule property by the date of the first sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of D1, and did not even file any document to show that the defendants 1 to 4 leased out the property to the plaintiff again, or to show that the plaintiff has paid maktha or lease amount to the defendants 1 to 4.
36. Apart from it, though the defendants 1 to 4 stated that they got issued legal notice to the plaintiff, Requesting her to vacate the scheduled property, admittedly the said notice was subsequent to the filing of the suit and even if it was issued in the year 2014, the defendants did not take any steps against the plaintiff for getting her evicted from the suit schedule property till now i.e. for about 12 years. Though the pattaadar passbook was issued in the name of D2 and D3, No mutation of his name takes place in the revenue records admittedly and even the patadar passbook issued in the name of D1 was cancelled and put on hold by the proceedings of the RDO in view of pendency of the present suit. If really the 1st defendant intended to purchase the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff sold the property out rightly to the 1st defendant, the sale deed should be with the 1st defendant and he would have obtained possession of the property from the plaintiff.
28/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
37.The learned counsel for the defendants also submitted that the plaintiff having properties obtained exemption from paying court fee and filed this suit falsely representing that she had no capacity to pay court fee. As could be seen from the record it shows that the plaintiff obtained exemption from the District Legal Services Authority, wherein a woman is entitled for legal services irrespective of having capacity to pay court fee or not. The defendant also did not adduce any evidence to show that the plaintiff obtained exemption either by misrepresenting or misleading the court.
38.The contention of the 1st defendant that he borrowed
Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and signed the blank promissory note and kept the sale deed as security with the plaintiff,is also without any proof and not reliable. The defence taken by the defendants is not at all reliable and probable, as no purchaser will keep the document as well as possession of the property with the vendor, without any valid document.
Where as the plaintiff, having contended that she executed the sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant in view of the fraud played by him, could successfully establish by her own evidence as well as from the admissions of DWs 1 to 4. hence she is entitled for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 22.09.2010 vide document No.1977/2010 executed by her in favour of the 1st defendant. However, since the plaintiff is not a party to the sale deeds executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the defendants 2 to 4 dated 27.09.2010 vide document No.2030/2010 and 15.11.2010 vide document No.3437/2010, those sale deeds can not be cancelled but are to be declared as null and void, since the 1st defendant who executed the said documents, himself had no right over the said property under the said documents.
Thus Issues 1 to 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.
29/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
39.ISSUE NO.4:
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages of rupees
15 lakhs from the defendants as prayed for?
The plaintiff contended that she suffered a lot due to the fabrication of the registered documents by all the defendants with a view to knock away her property and as such she is claiming Rs.15,00,000/- for damage caused to her estate. But since admittedly the plaint schedule property is in possession of the plaintiff and has been enjoying the same, no loss was caused to the plaintiff either to her property or any other estate of the plaintiff. Except a bare sentence in the plaint, the plaintiff did not explain and adduce any evidence as to how and in what manner she suffered loss for claiming damages of Rs.15,00,000/-. She also did not depose in her chief examination as to the said alleged loss suffered by her. Hence the plaintiff is not entitled to seek for damages of
Rs.15,00,000/- as prayed by her and at the best she is entitled for costs of the suit.
Thus, Issue No.4 is answered accordingly.
40.ISSUE NO.5 :
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent
injunction against the defendants as prayed for?
Admittedly the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since prior to the date of filing of the suit till now. The defendants though contended that they obtained possession from the plaintiff, no document is filed to show the same. The pattadar pass book stands in the name of D2 and D4 though filed, they also admitted that the plaintiff was in possession even by the date of issuance of the said pattadar pass books. Since the sale deed executed
30/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
by plaintiff in favour of D1 and the sale deeds executed by D1 in favour of
D2 to D4 are held to be not valid and binding on the plaintiff, and since the plaintiff was and has been in possession of the plaint schedule property, she is entitled for permanent injunction as against the derfendants as prayed by her.
Thus, Issue No.5 is answered accordingly.
41.ISSUE NO.6
6. To what relief?
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, and the registered sale deed dated 22.09.2010 vide document No.1977/2010 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant is hereby cancelled. Consequently the sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 dated 27.09.2010 vide document
No.2030/2010 and the sale deed dated 15.11.2010 vide document
No.3437/2010 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 4th defendant are declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, and also granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. Communicate the copy to the concerned Sub-Registrar for making necessary entries.
Dictated to Stenographer Grade -II, transcribed by her, corrected
and pronounced by me, in the Open Court, this the 17thday of March, 2026.
Sd/- L.THEJOVATHI
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
NELLORE.
31/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:
P.W.1 : Vankayalapati SudharaniD.W.1 : Mohammad Ghouse Mohiddin P.W.2 : Raja Ravindra BabuD.W.2 : Varada Sreedhar D.W.3 : Shodavaram Sunil Sundar Raj D.W.4 : Kolakalam Viswedra Kumar
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1Original nominal registered sale deed, dated 22.09.2010 bearing Document No.1997/2010 of Sub-Registrar’s Officer, Indukurpet. Ex.A2Certified copy of registered sale deed, dated 27.09.2010 bearing Document No.2030/2010 of Sub-Registrar’s Officer, Indukurpet in the name of defendants 2 and 3. Ex.A3Certified copy of registered sale deed, dated 15.11.2010 bearing Document No.2437/2010 of Sub-Registrar’s Officer, Indukurpet in the name of 4th defendant. Ex.A4Certified copy of registered Settlement deed, dated 19.12.2001 bearing Document No.1142/2001 of Sub-Registrar’s Office, Inndukurpet in the name of the plaintiff (Original is kept with State Bank of India, Indukurpet Branch for loan. Ex.A5Original Pattadar Pass book issued in favour of the plaintiff.
Ex.A6Original loan account passbook belongs to the plaintiff to show that plaintiff took loan from State Bank of India, Indukurpet Branch. Ex.A7Original Cist receipt issued by V.R.O. for the fasli 1418 to 1420 by South Amuluru. Ex.A8Legal notice issued by the plaintiff’s counsel, dated 27.07.2013 along with postal acknowledgment due. Ex.A9Computerized copy of 1-B namoona of R.O.R. along with Adangal phani for the faslis 1423 – 4 in number. Ex.A10 Original registered Settlement deed, dated 19.12.2001 executed by father of the plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A11 Original registered Settlement deed, dated 01.09.1994 executed by father of the plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A12 Original registered Settlement deed, dated 16.06.1984 executed in favour of father of the plaintiff (Link document to Ex.A11). Ex.A13 Original Title deed passbook of the plaintiff issued under R.O.R. Act.
32/32
III Additional District Judge, O.S.No.118/2014
NELLORE 17 th March, 2026.
Ex.A14 Demand notice, dated 03.03.2021 issued by Deputy Registrar, NDCC Bank Limited, Nellore to the plaintiff. Ex.A15 Certificate, dated 24.04.2019 issued under Sec.72 of A.P. Co-Operative Society. Ex.A16 Discharge Registered receipt, dated 28.03.2022 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, T.P.Gudur, P.A.C.S. Ex.A17 No due Certificate, dated 21.03.2022 issued by Chief Executive Officer, T.P.Gudur, P.A.C.S. Ex.A18 Plaintiff statement of account pertaining to account No.11519187160, State Bank of India, Indukurupet Branch from 01.06.2017 to 02.06.2018. Ex.A19 Order, dated 28.03.2016 of R.D.O., Nellore in Rc.D/3988/2015.
Ex.A20 Title deed passbook in favour father of the plaintiff issued under R.O.R. Act. Ex.A21 Original receipt, dated 18.02.2022 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, T.P. Gudur. Ex.A22 Original receipt, dated 16.02.2022 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, T.P. Gudur.
FOR DEFENDANTS:
Ex.B1Original registered sale deed, dated 27.09.2010 executed by D1 in favour of D2 and D3. Ex.B2Encumbrance certificate.
Ex.B3Office copy of legal notice, dated 18.06.2014 got issued by the defendants 2 to 4 to the plaintiff. Ex.B4Reply notice, dated 24.06.2014.
Ex.B5Registration extract of settlement deed, dated 19.12.2001 executed by V.Jayaramaiah in favour of plaintiff. Ex.B6Original registered sale deed, dated 15.11.2010 executed by the D1 in favour of D.W.4. Ex.B7Original Pattadar passbook stands in the name of D.W.4.
Ex.B8Original Pattadar passbook stands in the name of D.W.2.
Sd/- L.THEJOVATHI
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
NELLORE.