1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TADIPATRI
Present: Sri M.Chandrasekhara Reddy, Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri.
Friday, this the 14 th day of July, 2023.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.271 of 2013
Between:
Kapile Chinna Dasthagiri S/o K.Hussaini, Dudekula, aged 48 years, Employee working as Village Revenue Assistant, Resident of Vemulapadu Village and Post, Yadiki Mandal, Ananthapuram District.
.... Plaintiff
A N D
Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri died by L.Rs.
1. Kapile Dasthagirappa, S/o. Late K.Pedda Dasthagiri, Dudekula, aged about 35 years, Employee, working as Village Revenue Assistant, Resident of Vemulapadu Village and Post, Yadiki Mandal, Ananthapuram District.
2. Kapile Beebi, W/o. Late K.Alli Hussain, Dudekula, aged about 40 years, Housewife, Resident of Vemulapdu village and Post, Yadiki Mandal, Ananthapuram District.
3. Kapile Jilan Basha, S/o. Late K.Alli Hussain, Dudekula, aged about 22 years, Lorry Driver, Resident of Vemulapadu Village and Post, Yadiki Mandal, Ananthapuram District.
4. Dudekula Khasim Bee W/o. D.Dasthagiri, Dudekula, aged about 32 years, Housewife, Resident of D.No.10/79, Kummarageri, Gooty Town, Ananthapuram District. (Amended as per orders in I.A.No.25/2015 dated 7.12.2015)
.... Defendants
* * *
This suit came on 10.7.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.Ramesh Natha Reddy, Sri K.Sankara Reddy, Sri Y.Haneef
Basha and Sri D.Sivarama Krishna, Advocates for Plaintiffs and Sri
A.Krishnaiah, Advocate for the defendants and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants No.1 to 4 to execute the registered sale deed with regard to the plaint schedule property in terms of the agreement of sale dated 12.10.2006 executed by K.Pedda 2
Dathagiri in favour of plaintiff and for costs of the suit.
2. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:
(a) The plaint schedule property originally belonged to one Kapile Pedda
Dastagiri who is the elder brother of father of the plaintiff. The plaint schedule mentioned property is an agricultural land adjacent to the land of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant is the younger son of the said Kapile Pedda
Dastagiri. The elder son of Kapile Pedda Dastagiri by name Alli Hussain, died leaving behind the defendants No.2 & 3 as his legal heirs. The 2nd defendant is the wife and the 3rd defendant is the son of late Alli Hussain. The 4th defendant is the daughter of Kapile Pedda Dastagiri (Amended as per orders in I.A.No.25/2015 dated 7.12.2015)
(b) During life time of Kapile Pedda Dastagiri, he had sold the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff on 12.10.2006 for consideration of
Rs.4,500/ under an agreement of sale and delivered possession of the same to him. As per the said agreement of sale, it is agreed by Kapile Pedda
Dastagiri that he will clear the entire bank dues by 30.4.2007 and it further agreed by him that he will execute the registered sale deed on any day after
April, 2007 whenever called for to do so. Since the date of execution of the agreement of sale, the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. But, the said Kapile Pedda Dastagiri has postponed to perform his part of contract on one pretext or other. Subsequently, Kapile Pedda Dastagiri died in May, 2008, leaving behind the defendants No.1 to 4 as his legal heirs and they succeeded to the said property. Even after the death of Kapile
Pedda Dastagiri, the plaintiff demanded all the defendants to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the plaint schedule property in terms of agreement of sale dated 12.10.2006, but the defendants postponed the same.
3
(c) The plaintiff requested the defendants No.1 to 4 number of times to come to the SubRegistrar Office at Yadiki village for execution of registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the agreement of sale. But, the defendants are not heeded the requests of the plaintiff and postponed the performance. Finally, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt.5.6.2013 to the defendants requesting them to come to the SubRegistrar office, Yadiki and to execute the registered sale deed. The Defendants No.1 & 4 received the notice and the defendants 2 & 3 evaded to receive the notice and not come forward for execution of the registered sale deed. The 1st defendant got issued reply notice dated 10.6.2013 without denying the contents of the legal notice and requesting to send Xerox copy of sale agreement. As the 1st defendant not sent any amount for supplying the Xerox copy of agreement of sale, the plaintiff has not supplied any Xerox copy. Hence the suit.
3. The defendant No.1 filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and admitted the relationship of defendants No.1 to 4 with the deceased Kapile Pedda Dastagiri. The 1st defendant contended that defendants No.2 and 3 who are heirs of late Alli Hussain who predeceased
Kapile Pedda Dastagiri son of Hussiani and as such the succession not opened and they will not get any right in the property and the defendants 2 and 3 are not proper parties to the suit and adjudication. The agreement of sale dated 12.10.2006 is fabricated one and an outcome of forgery by taking advantage of the illiteracy of late Kapile Pedda Dastagiri. Pedda Dastagiri passed away in the year 2008 and the defendants 1 and 4 are the successors to Pedda Dastagiri and defendants 2 and 3 will not get any right in the properties of late Pedda Dastagiri as Alli Hussain predeceased Pedda
Dastagiri. The recitals of the alleged agreement of sale possession of the 4 property was delivered and as such the document i.e., agreement of sale is un enforceable and it requires stamp duty and penalty. The recitals of the agreement of sale denotes that all the rights are entrusted and the property is conveyed, it tantamount to registration and not registered document i.e., agreement of sale cannot be enforceable as it requires registration and prayed to dismiss the suit.
4. After amendment of plaint, the 1st defendant filed his additional written statement and contended that claiming right in the property to the 2nd and 3rd defendants is unsustainable as the elder son of Pedda Dastagiri by name Alli Hussain predeceased him and as the defendants are governed by
Islamic law and they embrace Islam and follow Islam and thus under Islamic law by the death of Alli Hussain succession not opened and after the death of
Pedda Dastagiri only succession opens, as such defendants 2 and 3 will not get any right in the suit property and they are not necessary parties to the suit. The plaintiff who has handinglow connection with the heirs of Alli
Hussain brought into existence to the alleged agreement of sale and made them as party, even though they are not necessary parties to the suit, hence they are not entitled for any share in the suit property as they are not necessary parties to the suit and prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. Defendants 2 to 4 remained Exparte.
6. Basing on the pleadings, the then Presiding Officer have been framed the following issues settled for trial:
1. Whether the agreement of sale dt.12.10.2006 was extend by Late
Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri in favour of the plaintiff and in valid and binding on the defendants”?
2. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract.?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a registered regular sale deed 5 from the defendants in respect of suit schedule property?
4. To what relief”?
Additional Issue dated 3.3.2016:
As per the docket order dated 3.3.2016 the additional issue is framed as follows:
1. Whether the defendants 2 and 3 none having any right under Islamic
Law in the suit schedule property?
7. Heard the arguments on both sides.
8. The counsel for plaintiff argued that during the life time of Kapile Pedda
Dasthagiri sold the plaint schedule mentioned property to the plaintiff on 12.10.2006 for Rs.4,500/ under an agreement of sale and delivered possession of the said property. He further argued that inspite of demands during life time of Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri and after his demise the defendants did not execute the regular registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff. The counsel for plaintiff further argued that if no specified time fixed in the agreement of sale, the limitation starts from the date of refusal and prays to decree the suit.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for Defendant No.1 argued that the father of defendant No.1 purchased the land for Rs.7,500/ and the same was sold to plaintiff for Rs.4,500/ is not believable. He further argued that at the time of execution of alleged agreement of sale, the deceased Kapile Pedda
Dasthagiri is unable to move and bedridden and the transaction under Ex.A1 is doubtful. The counsel further argued that the plaintiff forged the thumb impressions of Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri at the instance of scribe and attestors created Ex.A1 for wrongful gain. The counsel for defendant No.1 further argued that after receipt of summons in O.S.No.173/2013 the plaintiff filed 6 this suit by fabricating the Thumb Impressions of deceased Kapile Pedda
Dasthagiri and prays to dismiss the suit.
10. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as
PW1, one A.Ramakrishna Reddy who is one of the attestor of agreement of sale, one K.Krishna Murthy who is one of the scribe of agreement of sale and one K.Lakshmi Narayana, who is one of the attestor of agreement of sale were examined as PWs.2 to 4 respectively and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Ex.A1 is original agreement of sale dated 12.10.2006 executed by K.Pedda Dasthagiri in his favour, Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice got issued by him to the
Defendants No.1 to 4 dated 5.6.2013, Ex.A3 is Served postal acknowledgment of D4, Ex.A4 is Served postal acknowledgment of D1, Ex.A5 is unserved registered postal cover addressed to D2, Ex.A6 is unserved registered postal cover addressed to D3 and Ex.A7 is Reply notice got issued by 1st defendant
dated 10.6.2013.
11. On behalf of the defendant No.1 he himself examined as DW1 and one
R.Mallikarjuna Reddy was examined as DW2 and not documents were marked on his behalf.
12. ISSUES No.1 T0 3:
1. Whether the agreement of sale dt.12.10.2006 was extend by Late
Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri in favour of the plaintiff and in valid and binding on the defendants?
2. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of conract.?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a registered regular sale deed from the defendants in respect of suit schedule property?
Since these these issues are interconnected, to avoid the repetition in appreciate of evidence they are taken up together for discussion.
13. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the plaint schedule property 7 originally belonged to one Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri and during his life time he sold the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff on 12.10.2006 for valid consideration of Rs.4,500/ and delivered possession of the same to him on the same day. The plaintiff further pleaded that as per the said agreement of sale it is agreed by Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri that he will clear the entire bank dues by 30.4.2007 and further agreed that he will executed a registered sale deed on any day after April, 2007 when the plaintiff called for to do so. The plaintiff further pleaded that after 30.4.2007 Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri and after his demise the defendants did not execute regular registered sale deed in spite of oral demands and also legal notice dated 5.6.2013. Hence, the plaintiff filed this suit for specific performance of agreement of sale.
14. Per contra, the 1st defendant filed his written statement contended that the agreement of sale dated 12.10.2006 is fabricated one and outcome of forgery by taking advantage of illiteracy of late Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri. The 1st defendant pleaded in the written statement that as per the recitals of the alleged agreement of sale the possession of the property was delivered and as such the agreement of sale is unenforceable and it requires stamp duty and penalty. The 1st defendant further contended that claiming right in the property to the defendants No.2 and 3 is unsustainable as Alli Hussain the elder son of Pedda Dasthagiri predeceased Pedda Dasthagiri and as the defendants are governed by Islamic Law and they embraced Islam and thus by the death of Alli Hussain succession is not opened and after the death of
Pedda Dasthagiri succession opens and as such the defendants 2 and 3 are not get any right in the said property and they are not necessary parties to the suit.
15. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to refer to the admitted case of both the parties. It is undisputed case of both the parties that the plaintiff 8 and defendant are relatives. It is further undisputed case of parties that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to one Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri and he is absolute owner of the said property. Therefore, there is no dispute regarding the Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri being the absolute owner of suit schedule property.
16. In a suit for specific performance of contract of sale the burden to establish the case is on the plaintiff to prove that the executant has executed the agreement of sale on receiving agreed consideration and further he has established that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Coming to the case on hand, the defendant No.1 denied the execution of Ex.A1 by his father in favour of plaintiff on 12.10.2006 for
Rs.4,500/ as his father purchased the property on 18.5.1993 for Rs.7,500/.
The defendant No.1 further contended that the agreement of sale is fabricated one by forging thumb impressions of his father and the thumb impressions on Ex.A1 are not belonging to his father. The defendant No.1 further contended that the plaintiff forged the thumb impressions of his father with the assistance of scribe and attestors for wrongful gain. In view of rival contentions of both the parties, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the execution of Ex.A1 by Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri in the circumstances pleaded by him.
17. In this factual background, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and produced Exs.A1 to A7 besides examining one of the attestors and scribe of Ex.A1 by name A.Ramakrishna Reddy, Konakanchi Krishna Murthy and
K.Lakshmi Narayana as PWs.2 to 4 respectively. PW1 filed his chief examination affidavit reiterating the averments of the plaint. PWs.2 to 4 in their chief examination they reiterated what all the plaintiff pleaded in the plaint stating that in their presence on 12.10.2006 Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri 9 sold the suit schedule property to plaintiff for consideration of Rs.4,500/ under an agreement of sale and delivered possession of the said property to plaintiff on the same day and it was agreed by Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri that he will clear the bank dues by 30.4.2007 and then he will execute registered sale deed on any day after 30.4.2007 whenever called to do so. PWs.2 to 4 also deposed that Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri affixed his thumb impressions on the agreement of sale in their presence. They further deposed that since the date of execution of Ex.A1 plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but during his life time Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri and after his demise the defendants postponed to perform their part of contract.
18. On the other hand, to establish his defence, the 1st defendant himself was examined as DW1 besides examining one Rachamalla Mallikarjuna
Reddy who is third party to the suit as DW2. DW1 deposed in his evidence that he denied the execution of Ex.A1 by Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri and contended that after the death of his father, himself and defendants 2 to 4 are in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. DW1 further deposed that the agreement of sale is a fabricated one by forging the thumb impressions of his father. DW2 who is third party to the suit deposed in his evidence that after the demise of Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has no right and title or possession of the said property. In support of his claim, the 1st defendant exhibited Ex.B1, but it is no way concerned to this subject matter.
19. In a suit of specific performance of contract, the court must look into whether there exists a valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale/purchase of the suit schedule property and whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract.
10
20. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the initial onus is always on the plaintiff, PW1, PWs.2 to 4 who are scribe and attestors of Ex.A1 categorically deposed that during life time of Kapile Pedda
Dasthagiri, he has sold the suit schedule property to plaintiff on 12.10.2006 for consideration of Rs.4,500/ under an agreement of sale and delivered possession of the said property to plaintiff on the same day. They categorically deposed that the said Pedda Dasthagiri agreed that he will clear the entire bank dues by 30.4.2007 and then he will execute registered sale deed on any day after 30.4.2007 whenever called for to do so. PW2 who is attestor of Ex.A1 deposed in the crossexamination that the contents of Ex.A1 were read over by K.Krishna Murthy (PW3) and then he attested Ex.A1. PW3 who is scribe of Ex.A1 deposed in the crossexamination that he drafted
Ex.A1 and attestors put their signatures on Ex.A1 with his pen. PW4 who is another attestor denied the suggestion that Pedda Dasthagiri never executed the agreement of sale by taking consideration of Rs.4,500/ and also denied the suggestion that the plaintiff is happened to be a friend in collusion with scribe and other attestors creating Ex.A1 by way of forgery. DW1 admitted in his crossexamination that the scribe and attestor of Ex.A1 are belongs to their village and he do not have enmity with the said persons.
21. In the written statement, the 1st defendant pleaded that as per the recitals of the alleged agreement of sale possession of the property was delivered and as such the document i.e., agreement of sale is unenfforceable and it requires stamp duty and penalty. On perusal of Ex.A1, it is observed that Ex.A1 was executed on Rs.50/ stamp paper after filing of the suit the plaintiff paid necessary stamp duty and penalty. On perusal of Ex.A1, it is also clear that Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri being the absolute owner of suit schedule property executed an agreement of sale on 12.10.2006 on taking 11 total consideration of Rs.4,500/ agreeing to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. The said Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri agreed to execute sale deed as and when demanded by the plaintiff after clearing the bank dues after 30.4.2007, therefore, the time is not essence of the contract. Thereafter death of Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri the defendants inspite of demands evade to execute sale deed.
22. A keen perusal of evidence of PWs.1 to 4 shows that their evidence regarding the transaction under Ex.A1 had remained unchallenged. In the written statement and evidence of DW1 it is averred that Ex.A1 is forged by
PW1 with the assistance of PWs.2 to 4 and it is not binding on the defendants. Except mere averments in the written statement, the 1st defendant did not take any steps to send the Ex.A1 to the finger prints expert to decide the genuineness of Ex.A1. The defendant No.1 did not produce any proof to prove that Ex.A1 is forged document. On the other hand, the plaintiff proved Ex.A1 by examining the attestors and scribe as PWs.2 to 4.
In the crossexamination of PWs.1 to 4 the 1st defendant did not elicit anything against the case of plaintiff.
23. The counsel for defendant No.1 further argued that the father of defendant No.1 purchased the land for Rs.7,500/ in the year 1992 and the same was sold to plaintiff for Rs.4,500/ is not believable. In support of his arguments he has not placed any evidence. But, the plaintiff proved the execution of Ex.A1 by adducing sufficient evidence. The counsel for defendant
No.1 further argued that at the time of execution of Ex.A1 Kapile Pedda
Dasthagiri is unable to move from the bed and the transaction under Ex.A1 is doubtful. There is no force in the contention of defendant No.1 as he has not placed any evidence in this regard.
12
24. The counsel for defendant No.1 further argued that after receipt of summons in O.S.No.173/2013 filed by him for permanent injunction, the plaintiff filed this suit basing on Ex.A1 by forging the thumb impression of
Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri. But, this is not mentioned anywhere either in his written statement or in the chief examination affidavit of DW1. The plaintiff admitted in the crossexamination that after receiving summons in
O.S.No.173/2013 he got issued Ex.A2 legal notice to the defendant. The 1st
defendant raised this contention for the first time in the course of arguments.
Hence, there is no force in the above contention.
25. The other aspect is readyness and willingness of plaintiff to perform his part of contract. In Ex.A1 itself made an averment that the executant agreed to execute sale deed as and when demanded by the plaintiff after clearing bank dues after 30.4.2007. Admittedly, Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri died in the year 2008. DW1 further admitted that there is a mortgage for the suit schedule property as on the date of Ex.A1. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that inspite of repeated oral demands the defendants did not perform their part of contract. Finally, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants under Ex.A2 requesting them to come and execute regular registered sale deed in his favour. But, the defendant No.1 gave reply under Ex.A7 that he requested to send photostat copy of Ex.A1 for giving suitable reply to Ex.A2.
The plaintiff averred in the plaint that the Xerox copy of Ex.A1 already with the defendants and the plaintiff has not supplied any Xerox copy as the 1st defendant did not sent any amount for supplying Xerox copy of Ex.A1. PW1 deposed in his crossexamination that 7 or 8 times he demanded the defendants to execute registered sale deed after demise of Pedda Dasthagiri.
In the crossexamination DW1 admitted that the plaintiff asked them to execute registered sale deed after 3 years from the date of death of his father.
13
DW1 further admitted in the crossexamination that prior to filing of the suit the plaintiff got issued legal notice to him and other defendants calling them to execute registered sale deed in terms of Ex.A1. Hence, the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract after the death of Kapile Pedda
Dasthagiri and the defendants refused to do so.
26. In almost all agreements it is stated that the seller includes his successors and legal heirs. Even otherwise a person inherit the property of a deceased with all prior obligation and rights attached to it. Therefore, legal heirs cannot refuse to sell the property to buyer. As per law after the death of the seller, his legal heirs should execute sale deed in favour of purchasor. So, it is the bounden duty of the legal heirs of the seller to execute registered sale deed in favour of purchasor. Here, the deceased Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri executed Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff and after his demise it is the bounden duty of the defendants who are legal heirs of deceased Kapile Pedda
Dasthagiri to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff.
27. In view of the above discussion and evidence, the plaintiff proved that
Ex.A1 was executed by late Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri in his favour and it is binding on the defendants and the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract as on the date of filing of the suit. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to get regular registered sale deed from the defendants in respect of suit schedule property. Accordingly Issues No.1 to 3 are answered in favour of plaintiff.
28. ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.1 :
1. Whether the defendants 2 and 3 none having any right under Islamic
Law in the suit schedule property?
Admittedly, the defendants No.2 and 3 are the legal heirs of Alli 14
Husain who is elder son of Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri. The said Alli Hussain died leaving behind the defendants No.2 and 3 as his legal heirs. In the
additional written statement the defendant No.1 pleaded that claiming right
in the property to the defendants No.2 and 3 is unsustainable as Alli Hussain the elder son of Pedda Dasthagiri predeceased Pedda Dasthagiri. The defendants are governed by Islamic law and they embraced Islam and thus under Islamic Law by the death of Alli Hussain sucession not opened and after the death of Kapile Pedda Dasthagiri only succession opened and as such defendants No.2 and 3 will get any right in the suit schedule property and they are not necessary parties. In support of his contention, the 1st defendant did not produce any evidence before this court. Since the defendants No.2 and 3 remained exparte. The 1st defendant also contended that the defendants No.2 & 3 are not neccessary parties to the suit as they followed Islamic law. The 1st defendant failed to prove that they followed
Islamic law and they are not governed under Hind Law. Hence, there is no force in the contention of 1st defendant that they are not followed Hindu law.
Accordingly this additional issue No.1 is answered against the 1st defendant.
29. ISSUE No.4: To what relief?
In view of the findings in Issue No.1 to 3 and additional issue No.1, the suit has to be decreed with costs.
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in pursuance of agreement of sale dated 12.10.2006 within 60 days from the date of this judgment else the plaintiff is at liberty to get registered sale deed executed through process of law.
Dictated to the personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 14th day of July, 2023.
15
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
TADIPATRI.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT No.1
PW.1: A.Chinna Dasthagiri DW1: K.Dasthagirappa
PW.2: A.Ramakrishna Reddy DW2: R.Mallikarjuna Reddy
PW.3: Konakanchi Krishna Murthy
PW.4: K.Lakshmi Narayana
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.A1: Original agreement of sale dated 12.10.2006 executed by K.Pedda Dasthagiri in his favour.
Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice got issued by him to the defendants No.1 to 4 dated 5.6.2013.
Ex.A3: Served postal acknowledgment of D4.
Ex.A4: Served postal acknowledgment of D1.
Ex.A5: Unserved registered postal cover addressed to D2.
Ex.A6: Unserved registered postal cover addressed to D3.
Ex.A7: Reply notice got issued by 1st defendant dated 10.6.2013.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS
Ex.B1: Admission letter issued by the Head Master, MPUP School,
Vemulapadu of Yadiki mandal (marked subject to objection).
J.C.J/TDP.