Sri M. Kasi Viswanadha Achary

O.S.No. 72 of 2015 Page No. 1 of 9

APAN090000632015

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION): GOOTY

Present:- Sri. M. Kasi Viswanadha Achary,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gooty

Monday, this the 4th day of May, 2026

Original Suit No. 72 of 2015

Between:.

Maligevelu Roopa Reddy D/o M.Gangadhar Reddy, aged 4 years, Minor represented by her mother M.Lakshmi w/o M.Gangadhar Reddy, R/o D.No.54, Eguvapalli Village, Garladinne Mandal. … Plaintiff

And

1. Maligeveli Venkatarami Reddy died by Lrs

2. Maligeveli Subbamma w/o late Dyananda Reddy, aged 40 years, R/o

Khadarpeta Village, Pamidi Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

3. Maligeveli Siva Reddy s/o late Dayanada Reddy, aged 21 years, R/o

Khadarpeta Village, Pamidi Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

4. Maligeveli Gangadhara reddy S/o M.Venkataram Rocky, aged 40 years,

R/o Khadarpeta Village, Pamidi Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

5. Sreenivasulu Naidu s/o Venkatesulu, Major, R/o B5, Suvidha Cottage,

Suvidha Colony, Kesavapuram Village, Hubil Darwada District.

6. D.Prabhavathi W/o Janaki Rami Reddy, aged about 50 years, R/o

Nemathabad, Near Golden Cafe, Gooty.

7. B.Neelavathi w/o B.Bali Reddy, aged about 48 years, R/o D.No1-90,

O.S.No. 72 of 2015 Page No. 2 of 9

Tarimela Singanamala. … Defendants

This suit is coming on 6.4.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri

S.B.Subbiah, Sri D.Shafiulla, Sri M.Parameswara Reddy, Advocates for the plaintiff, Sri R.Ramagopal Advocate for Defendant No.5. Defendant No. 2 to 4, Defendant No.6 and 7 remained exparte, the matter having stood over for consideration and this court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This suit filed by the plaintiff for passing preliminary decree and

Judgment in favour of the plaintiff for division of plaint schedule properties claiming 1/8th share taking into consideration the good and bad qualities and put in separate possession of her share in the suit properties directing division by metes and bounds and for award of costs of the suit.

2.The 4th defendant is father of the plaintiff, 1st defendant is father of 4th defendant and one Dayanda Reddy. The said Dayanda Reddy was died leaving behind his wife and son who are the 2nd and 3rd defendants. 2nd defendant is daughter in law of the 1st defendant, 3rd defendant is grandson of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff mother is guardian, who is wife of 4th defendant.

1st defendant is the grand father of the plaintiff, 2nd defendant is paternal mother of the plaintiff i.e., she is wife of Dayanda Reddy who is the son of 1st defendant and brother of the 4th defendant and 3rd defendant is son of

Dayanda Reddy. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 constituted as Hindu Joint family and living under one umbrella. 5th defendant is the purchaser of the plaint schedule property.

3.The 1st defendant died and leaving behind his legal heirs of one

Dayanada Reddy (died) his legal heirs as his wife 2nd defendant and his son

O.S.No. 72 of 2015 Page No. 3 of 9

3rd defendant. Gangadhara reddy (D4), Hemavathi died long back as unmarried. The 6th defendant is prabhavathi and 7th defendant is Neelavathi as his daughters. All of them are constitute as Hindu Undivided family. The defendnats 2 to 4 and 6 and 7 got ¼ share in the plaint schedule property. In this plaintiff got 1/8th share in the share of defendant no.4.

4.The plaint schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and the 1 to 4 defendants. The plaint schedule property is joint family property for defendants managing the joint family properties. The 5th defendant who is purchaser of the part in schedule property recently on 12.2.2015. The said transaction is sham and nominal only for evading the share of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs mother is the legally wedded wife of the 4th defendant, recently some disputes arose between them, due to that both of them living separately. Due to the minor girl, the plaintiff lived along with the mother. Moreover, the 4th defendant hatred the plaintiff due to his wife gave birth as female child. Due to the grudge, the 4th defendant intentionally created sham and nominal documents in favour of the 5th defendant to evade the 1/8th share of the palintiff. 4th defendant got ¼ th share in the plaint schedule property, in that the plaintiff got half of the share in the share of the 4th defendant. 2nd and 3rd defendants are equal share of ¼ th share in the plaint schedule property.

5.As the 4th defendant was not inclined to allot the plaintiffs share in spite of repeated demands and conducted panchayaths with their community elders to the 4th defendant calling upon him to partition of the plaint schedule properties and put the plaintiff in possession of their shares. The 1st to 4th defendants attends the panchayath before elders and kept quiet. Even since one month ago, 4th defendant sold the extent Ac.6.88 cents in Sy.No.182-A in the plaint schedule property without the consent of the plaintiff to 5th defendant as nominal one. Moreover, 4th defendant challenged the same to sell other shares also and proclaimed the same in public. Hence, the plaintiff inclined to

O.S.No. 72 of 2015 Page No. 4 of 9

file the suit against all the defendants. The 4th defendant create a sale deed in favour 5th defendant is nominal one.

6. The plaintiff is entitled to seek partition of the plaint schedule property in equal share and 4th defendant to be put in possession. 1st defendant is being the father of the 4th defendant and grandfather of the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 3 are the legal heirs of the Dayanada Reddy who is son of the 1st defendant and 6 and 7 defendants of the 1st defendant.

7. Defendant No.5 filed written statement stating that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case and submitted that plaintiff is the son of 4th defendant and that he purchased the suit property item no.1 for valid consideration and he is bonafide purchaser and submitted that suit is unjust only for wrongful gain and that plaintiff has no manner of right in filing the suit on the ground that the plaintiff’s mother was attestor of the sale deed dt.11.2.2015 and that the plaintiff’s mother and 4th defendant colluded and filed the suit for want of money and that suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

8.The mother of plaintiff examined as PW1 and also examined Pw2 and

Pw3, Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 documents marked for the plaintiff. Defendant No.5 examined as Dw.1 and also examined Dw.2. Ex. B1 to B.4 documents marekd for Defendant No.5.

9.Heard arguments on plaintiff side and Defendant No.5 and perused the written submission of the plaintiff.

10.Basing on the plaint pleadings following issues framed;

O.S.No. 72 of 2015 Page No. 5 of 9

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of her 1/8th share in the plaint schedule properties ?

2. To what relief ?

Issue no.1

11. This suit filed by the minor represented by her mother against the defendants claiming 1/8 th share in the suit schedule properties from the share of the father of minor. Defendant no.4 is father of the minor daughter.

Plaint schedule properties are shown as item no.1 to 3. These properties are claimed as Joint Hindu Family Properties.

The plaint schedule properties are as follows.

Item no. 1

Property situated within RD of Ananthapuramu SRO of Pamidi with in the village of Ayyavaripalli Village, Guntakal Mandal

Sy.No.182-A, Extent Ac.6.88 cents

Item No.2:

Property situated with RD of Ananthapuramu SRO of Pamidi within the village of Khadarpeta Village, Pamidi Mandal

Sy.No.277 and 277/4, Extent of Ac.3.42 cents.

Item No.3

Property situated with RD of Ananthapuramu SRO of Pamidi with in the village of Devarapalli Village, Pamidi Mandal

Sy.No.7-A, Extent Ac.6.92 cents

12.The deceased 1st defendant is grand father of plaintiff. Defendant no.2 and 3 are legal heirs of late Dayanada Reddy who is son of 1st defendant. 4th

O.S.No. 72 of 2015 Page No. 6 of 9

defendant is son of 1st defendant and father of plaintiff and husband to mother of plaintiff who is M.Lakshmi. Defendant no.6 and 8 are the daughters of 1st defendant.

13.The 5th defendant is contesting party to the suit who purchased the property form the 4th defendant and claims that he is bonafide purchaser of item No1 of the plaint schedule property.

14.To establish that he is bonafide purchaser, the 5th defendant produced

Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 documents out of the said documents Ex.B1 is certified copy of registered sale deed in respect of item no.1 of the suit schedule. Ex.B1 executed on 11.2.2015 to which 1st defendant and mother of plaintiff are attestors and confirmed the sale on receipt of sale consideration. Remaining documents are subsequent revenue documents showing the transfer of property and mutations in revenue records reflects the transfer of property in the name of 5th defendant. Dw2 is one of the attestor to Ex.B1, he gave evidence that Pw1 also attestor to the said document.

15.Pw1 who is mother of plaintiff deny the receipt of consideration and execution of her done by force of her husband by beating her and made her to sign in registered document in favour of Defendant no.5. But there is no record to show that, mother of plaintiff initiated criminal proceedings against the acts of her husband and did not seek any relief for cancellation of the registered document executed in favour of the 5th defendant in respect of item no.1 of the plaint schedule property.

16.As seen from the admission made by the plaintiff mother, she is living away from Defendant no.4 at her parents house along with minor plaintiff, and filed maintenance petition MC 9/2015, this reflects that there are existing disputes between the plaintiff mother and defendant no.4.

O.S.No. 72 of 2015 Page No. 7 of 9

17.Plaintiff except filing of valuation certificate in respect of plaint schedule property, no other document filed before the court, showing the nature of the plaint schedule property and in whose name the property stands, in which she claim right of partition. Through the evidence of Pw2 and Pw3 reveal that some portion of the plaint schedule property sold by the defendant no.4.

18.Pw2 and Pw3 are third parties to the suit property, in their evidence it reveals that they are not aware of the description of the properties i.e., survey number and extent, boundaries of the suit property. Pw3 said that he do not know the extent of the property possessed by the defendant no.1 and he do not know in which survey number property sold by defendant no.1 and he admitted that he has not seen the documents executed in favour of the defendant no.5. The evidence of Pw2 and Pw3 are only hearsay evidence, no reliance place in their evidence.

19.The counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendant no.4 has no right to sale the property and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High

Court between Rameshwar Vs Shivajji and Anr reported in 2019 1 CurCC 320 stating that suit is maintainable against defendants to protect the right of the minor child.

20.In the present case, the suit filed by the plaintiff does not supported by the documentary evidence in respect of the suit property to claim that the suit property is ancestral property and plaintiff and defendants are holding joint family properties and they constitute as Joint Hindu family. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

O.S.No. 72 of 2015 Page No. 8 of 9

Issue No.2;

21. In the result, this suit is dismissed with costs.

Judgment dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 4th day of May, 2026.

Civil Judge(Senior Division),

Gooty.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined for plaintiff:-

P.W.1: Maligeveli Lakshmi Devi

P.W.2: Patra Golla Kesavaiah

P.W.3: Mulla Lal Basha

Witnesses examined for defendant:

D.W.1: Srinivasulu Naidu

D.W.2: N.Rama Krishna

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A1 Valuation Certificates 3 in number dt.5.3.2015

Ex.A2Certified copy of petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., by

PW1 and daughter on the file of Addl Judicial Magistrate of 1st

Class, Ananthapuramu.

O.S.No. 72 of 2015 Page No. 9 of 9

Exhibits marked for defendant:

Ex.B1Certified copy of Regd. Sale deed dt.11.2.2015 executed by M.Gangadhar Reddy (defendant no.4) in favour of Defendant no.5

Ex.B2Pattadar pass book stands in the name of defendant NO.5

Ex.B3Pattadar Adangal

Ex.B4Form 1-B

Civil Judge(Senior Division),

Gooty.

O.S.No. 72 of 2015 Page No. 1 of 9

APAN090000632015

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION): GOOTY

Present:- Sri. M. Kasi Viswanadha Achary,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gooty

Monday, this the 4th day of May, 2026

Original Suit No. 72 of 2015

Between:.

Maligevelu Roopa Reddy D/o M.Gangadhar Reddy, aged 4 years, Minor represented by her mother M.Lakshmi w/o M.Gangadhar Reddy, R/o D.No.54, Eguvapalli Village, Garladinne Mandal. … Plaintiff

And

1. Maligeveli Venkatarami Reddy died by Lrs

2. Maligeveli Subbamma w/o late Dyananda Reddy, aged 40 years, R/o

Khadarpeta Village, Pamidi Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

3. Maligeveli Siva Reddy s/o late Dayanada Reddy, aged 21 years, R/o

Khadarpeta Village, Pamidi Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

4. Maligeveli Gangadhara reddy S/o M.Venkataram Rocky, aged 40 years,

R/o Khadarpeta Village, Pamidi Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

5. Sreenivasulu Naidu s/o Venkatesulu, Major, R/o B5, Suvidha Cottage,

Suvidha Colony, Kesavapuram Village, Hubil Darwada District.

6. D.Prabhavathi W/o Janaki Rami Reddy, aged about 50 years, R/o

Nemathabad, Near Golden Cafe, Gooty.

7. B.Neelavathi w/o B.Bali Reddy, aged about 48 years, R/o D.No1-90,

O.S.No. 72 of 2015 Page No. 2 of 9

Tarimela Singanamala. … Defendants

This suit is coming on 6.4.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri

S.B.Subbiah, Sri D.Shafiulla, Sri M.Parameswara Reddy, Advocates for the plaintiff, Sri R.Ramagopal Advocate for Defendant No.5. Defendant No. 2 to 4, Defendant No.6 and 7 remained exparte, the matter having stood over for consideration and this court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This suit filed by the plaintiff for passing preliminary decree and

Judgment in favour of the plaintiff for division of plaint schedule properties claiming 1/8th share taking into consideration the good and bad qualities and put in separate possession of her share in the suit properties directing division by metes and bounds and for award of costs of the suit.

2.The 4th defendant is father of the plaintiff, 1st defendant is father of 4th defendant and one Dayanda Reddy. The said Dayanda Reddy was died leaving behind his wife and son who are the 2nd and 3rd defendants. 2nd defendant is daughter in law of the 1st defendant, 3rd defendant is grandson of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff mother is guardian, who is wife of 4th defendant.

1st defendant is the grand father of the plaintiff, 2nd defendant is paternal mother of the plaintiff i.e., she is wife of Dayanda Reddy who is the son of 1st defendant and brother of the 4th defendant and 3rd defendant is son of

Dayanda Reddy. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 constituted as Hindu Joint family and living under one umbrella. 5th defendant is the purchaser of the plaint schedule property.

3.The 1st defendant died and leaving behind his legal heirs of one

Dayanada Reddy (died) his legal heirs as his wife 2nd defendant and his son

O.S.No. 72 of 2015 Page No. 3 of 9

3rd defendant. Gangadhara reddy (D4), Hemavathi died long back as unmarried. The 6th defendant is prabhavathi and 7th defendant is Neelavathi as his daughters. All of them are constitute as Hindu Undivided family. The defendnats 2 to 4 and 6 and 7 got ¼ share in the plaint schedule property. In this plaintiff got 1/8th share in the share of defendant no.4.

4.The plaint schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and the 1 to 4 defendants. The plaint schedule property is joint family property for defendants managing the joint family properties. The 5th defendant who is purchaser of the part in schedule property recently on 12.2.2015. The said transaction is sham and nominal only for evading the share of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs mother is the legally wedded wife of the 4th defendant, recently some disputes arose between them, due to that both of them living separately. Due to the minor girl, the plaintiff lived along with the mother. Moreover, the 4th defendant hatred the plaintiff due to his wife gave birth as female child. Due to the grudge, the 4th defendant intentionally created sham and nominal documents in favour of the 5th defendant to evade the 1/8th share of the palintiff. 4th defendant got ¼ th share in the plaint schedule property, in that the plaintiff got half of the share in the share of the 4th defendant. 2nd and 3rd defendants are equal share of ¼ th share in the plaint schedule property.

5.As the 4th defendant was not inclined to allot the plaintiffs share in spite of repeated demands and conducted panchayaths with their community elders to the 4th defendant calling upon him to partition of the plaint schedule properties and put the plaintiff in possession of their shares. The 1st to 4th defendants attends the panchayath before elders and kept quiet. Even since one month ago, 4th defendant sold the extent Ac.6.88 cents in Sy.No.182-A in the plaint schedule property without the consent of the plaintiff to 5th defendant as nominal one. Moreover, 4th defendant challenged the same to sell other shares also and proclaimed the same in public. Hence, the plaintiff inclined to

O.S.No. 72 of 2015 Page No. 4 of 9

file the suit against all the defendants. The 4th defendant create a sale deed in favour 5th defendant is nominal one.

6. The plaintiff is entitled to seek partition of the plaint schedule property in equal share and 4th defendant to be put in possession. 1st defendant is being the father of the 4th defendant and grandfather of the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 3 are the legal heirs of the Dayanada Reddy who is son of the 1st defendant and 6 and 7 defendants of the 1st defendant.

7. Defendant No.5 filed written statement stating that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case and submitted that plaintiff is the son of 4th defendant and that he purchased the suit property item no.1 for valid consideration and he is bonafide purchaser and submitted that suit is unjust only for wrongful gain and that plaintiff has no manner of right in filing the suit on the ground that the plaintiff’s mother was attestor of the sale deed dt.11.2.2015 and that the plaintiff’s mother and 4th defendant colluded and filed the suit for want of money and that suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

8.The mother of plaintiff examined as PW1 and also examined Pw2 and

Pw3, Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 documents marked for the plaintiff. Defendant No.5 examined as Dw.1 and also examined Dw.2. Ex. B1 to B.4 documents marekd for Defendant No.5.

9.Heard arguments on plaintiff side and Defendant No.5 and perused the written submission of the plaintiff.

10.Basing on the plaint pleadings following issues framed;

O.S.No. 72 of 2015 Page No. 5 of 9

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of her 1/8th share in the plaint schedule properties ?

2. To what relief ?

Issue no.1

11. This suit filed by the minor represented by her mother against the defendants claiming 1/8 th share in the suit schedule properties from the share of the father of minor. Defendant no.4 is father of the minor daughter.

Plaint schedule properties are shown as item no.1 to 3. These properties are claimed as Joint Hindu Family Properties.

The plaint schedule properties are as follows.

Item no. 1

Property situated within RD of Ananthapuramu SRO of Pamidi with in the village of Ayyavaripalli Village, Guntakal Mandal

Sy.No.182-A, Extent Ac.6.88 cents

Item No.2:

Property situated with RD of Ananthapuramu SRO of Pamidi within the village of Khadarpeta Village, Pamidi Mandal

Sy.No.277 and 277/4, Extent of Ac.3.42 cents.

Item No.3

Property situated with RD of Ananthapuramu SRO of Pamidi with in the village of Devarapalli Village, Pamidi Mandal

Sy.No.7-A, Extent Ac.6.92 cents

12.The deceased 1st defendant is grand father of plaintiff. Defendant no.2 and 3 are legal heirs of late Dayanada Reddy who is son of 1st defendant. 4th

O.S.No. 72 of 2015 Page No. 6 of 9

defendant is son of 1st defendant and father of plaintiff and husband to mother of plaintiff who is M.Lakshmi. Defendant no.6 and 8 are the daughters of 1st defendant.

13.The 5th defendant is contesting party to the suit who purchased the property form the 4th defendant and claims that he is bonafide purchaser of item No1 of the plaint schedule property.

14.To establish that he is bonafide purchaser, the 5th defendant produced

Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 documents out of the said documents Ex.B1 is certified copy of registered sale deed in respect of item no.1 of the suit schedule. Ex.B1 executed on 11.2.2015 to which 1st defendant and mother of plaintiff are attestors and confirmed the sale on receipt of sale consideration. Remaining documents are subsequent revenue documents showing the transfer of property and mutations in revenue records reflects the transfer of property in the name of 5th defendant. Dw2 is one of the attestor to Ex.B1, he gave evidence that Pw1 also attestor to the said document.

15.Pw1 who is mother of plaintiff deny the receipt of consideration and execution of her done by force of her husband by beating her and made her to sign in registered document in favour of Defendant no.5. But there is no record to show that, mother of plaintiff initiated criminal proceedings against the acts of her husband and did not seek any relief for cancellation of the registered document executed in favour of the 5th defendant in respect of item no.1 of the plaint schedule property.

16.As seen from the admission made by the plaintiff mother, she is living away from Defendant no.4 at her parents house along with minor plaintiff, and filed maintenance petition MC 9/2015, this reflects that there are existing disputes between the plaintiff mother and defendant no.4.

O.S.No. 72 of 2015 Page No. 7 of 9

17.Plaintiff except filing of valuation certificate in respect of plaint schedule property, no other document filed before the court, showing the nature of the plaint schedule property and in whose name the property stands, in which she claim right of partition. Through the evidence of Pw2 and Pw3 reveal that some portion of the plaint schedule property sold by the defendant no.4.

18.Pw2 and Pw3 are third parties to the suit property, in their evidence it reveals that they are not aware of the description of the properties i.e., survey number and extent, boundaries of the suit property. Pw3 said that he do not know the extent of the property possessed by the defendant no.1 and he do not know in which survey number property sold by defendant no.1 and he admitted that he has not seen the documents executed in favour of the defendant no.5. The evidence of Pw2 and Pw3 are only hearsay evidence, no reliance place in their evidence.

19.The counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendant no.4 has no right to sale the property and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High

Court between Rameshwar Vs Shivajji and Anr reported in 2019 1 CurCC 320 stating that suit is maintainable against defendants to protect the right of the minor child.

20.In the present case, the suit filed by the plaintiff does not supported by the documentary evidence in respect of the suit property to claim that the suit property is ancestral property and plaintiff and defendants are holding joint family properties and they constitute as Joint Hindu family. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

O.S.No. 72 of 2015 Page No. 8 of 9

Issue No.2;

21. In the result, this suit is dismissed with costs.

Judgment dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 4th day of May, 2026.

Civil Judge(Senior Division),

Gooty.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined for plaintiff:-

P.W.1: Maligeveli Lakshmi Devi

P.W.2: Patra Golla Kesavaiah

P.W.3: Mulla Lal Basha

Witnesses examined for defendant:

D.W.1: Srinivasulu Naidu

D.W.2: N.Rama Krishna

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A1 Valuation Certificates 3 in number dt.5.3.2015

Ex.A2Certified copy of petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., by

PW1 and daughter on the file of Addl Judicial Magistrate of 1st

Class, Ananthapuramu.

O.S.No. 72 of 2015 Page No. 9 of 9

Exhibits marked for defendant:

Ex.B1Certified copy of Regd. Sale deed dt.11.2.2015 executed by M.Gangadhar Reddy (defendant no.4) in favour of Defendant no.5

Ex.B2Pattadar pass book stands in the name of defendant NO.5

Ex.B3Pattadar Adangal

Ex.B4Form 1-B

Civil Judge(Senior Division),

Gooty.

O.S.No.109 OF 2017 Page No. 1 of 7

APAN090001892017

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION): GOOTY

Present:- Sri. M. Kasi Viswanadha Achary,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gooty

Wednesday, this the 29th day of April, 2026

Original Suit No. 109 of 2017

Between:

Gondi Rama Lakshmamma W/o G Adi Narayana, aged about 52 years, R/o

D.No.1/39, Chinna Polamada Village, Tadipatri Mandal, Ananthapuramu

District. … Plaintiff

And

1. Kommera Gopal S/o late K.Venkata Swamy, aged about 67 years, R/o

D.No.4/42-227, Porata Colony, Tadipatri Town & Mandal, Ananthapuramu

District.

2. Kommera Ananthamma W/o Kommera Gopal, aged about 52 years, R/o

D.No.4/42-227, Porata Colony, Tadipatri Town & Mandal, Ananthapuramu

District. … Defendants

This suit is coming on 1.4.2026 for final hearing in the presence of

Sri N.V.Bhaskar Reddy, Sri K.S.S.Prabhu Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and

Sri P.V.Prathapa Reddy Advocate for defendant, the matter having stood over for consideration and this court made the following:

O.S.No.109 OF 2017 Page No. 2 of 7

JUDGMENT

1.This suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for passing

Preliminary Decree, in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants no.1 and 2 for recovery of an amount of Rs.10,09,400/- and for cost of the suit, seeking direction to the defendants no.1 and 2 to pay the suit amount and if the defendants fails to pay the suit amount, as per the order of the Court, to pass final decree for sale of the schedule property and for order reliefs, in the interest of justice.

2.That on 12.4.2012 defendant no.1 and 2 approached plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- from the plaintiff for their family necessities and on the same day for collateral security, the defendant no.1 and 2 mortgaged the plaint schedule property and jointly executed registered simple mortgage deed bearing no.1850/2012 dt.12.4.2012 at Tadipatri Sub-

Registrar Office in favour of plaintiff and on same day agreed to repay the said amount with monthly interest thereon at 24% per annum to plaintiff.

3.That since the date of execution of registered simple mortgage deed,

Defendant No.1 and 2 have not paid any amount with interest from 12.4.2012 to till filing of suit. The plaintiff made several demands to defendant no.1 and 2 calling them to repay the debt under mortgage deed with interest. At last plaintiff got issued legal notice to defendant no.1 and 2 on 8.10.2016 and same is served on defendant no.1 and 2, but they got issued reply legal notice with false allegations. Hence, the suit.

4.Written statement filed by the defendant no.1 and 2 stating that the suit is neither just nor maintainable either in law or on facts and the suit is vexatious, untenable and not maintainable. The plea of the plaintiff that they approached the plaintiff to borrow the amount by executing mortgage deed for

O.S.No.109 OF 2017 Page No. 3 of 7

interest at 24% per annum is false. That no consideration passed to the defendants.

5.That defendant no.1 is a mason. Defendant no.2 is house wife, they are under below poverty line, while so Government of Andhra Pradesh was allotted 0.003/4 cents of Government site under the Scheme of Houseless people under a patta about 19 years ago, bot the defendants with their hard labour and with the assistance of Government they constructed house on the open place.

6.While so defendant no.1 accidentally fell from a building about 8 years ago due to said accident, defendant no.1 spinal cord was damaged and at the advice of the doctor defendant no1 taking rest without any work. Under those circumstances in order to maintain the family defendant no.2 did saree and cloth business by taking amounts from several persons at high rate of interest.

That some day the business run smoothly, subsequently debtors of her stopped the payments to her, the business of defendant no.2 became weak and she is not in a position to pay interest or principal amount to her creditors including plaintiff.

7.That under the above circumstances. Plaintiff being highly influenced person forcibly took the defendants to Tadipatri Sub-Registrar Office, somehow she plaintiff got registered the suit simple mortgage deed bearing no.1850 dt.12.4.2012 by managing the officials, document writer and concern office. In fact the suit schedule property is not alienable or mortgage to any 3rd parties by the assignees without prior permission of Government as per provisions of AP Assigned lands Prohibited Act. But plaintiff with her influence got mortgaged deed forcibly from defendants.

O.S.No.109 OF 2017 Page No. 4 of 7

8.That the mortgage deed not enforceable under law it is to be cancelled, as plaintiff committed offence under the said Act by taking mortgage deed in respect of suit property and plaintiff liable for criminal prosecution. Plaintiff not having legal right to enforce the suit mortgage deed. There is no cause of action and suit is liable to be dismissed.

9.The plaintiff examined as PW1 and also examined PW.2 and PW.3,

Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 documents marked for the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 examined as DW.1 and also examined D.W.2 and D.W.3, Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 documents marked for defendant.

10.Heard arguments on both the sides. Perused the written aruguments submitted on the side of plaintiff.

11. Basing on the pleadings, the following issues framed

1. Whether the Mortgage deed was obtained by the plaintiff by force as pleaded by the defendant ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for ?

3.To What relief ?

Issue No. 1

12.Plaintiff gave evidence as PW1, she reveal that mortgage deed executed by defendants before the Sub-Registrar office Tadipatri for the amount borrowed by them in the presence of PW2 and PW3. That PW2 and

PW3 did not raise any point of using force against defendants and producing

before the office of Sub-Registrar Tadipatri by managing the official. The

defendants did not took any steps against the plaintiff by way of initiating the criminal proceedings and did not take steps for cancellation of the registered mortgage deed. In such a case the plea of the defendants that mortgage deed executed against their will by using the force not establish before the Court.

O.S.No.109 OF 2017 Page No. 5 of 7

Further more document was executed before the Sub Registrar, Tadipatri who verifies prior to the execution of registered document and got document registered and no infirmity drawn as to the plea of the defendants that they were forced to execute mortgage deed. Hence the plea of the defendants that they were forced in executing document cannot be sustain.

Issue No.2

13. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants borrowed Rs.4,50,000- 00 from the plaintiff and executed mortgage deed in favour of plaintiff. In order to establish passing of consideration, the plaintiff himself examined and produced Ex.A.1 before the court, same is marked as Ex.A.1 subsequent to the execution of document plaintiff got issued legal notice under Ex.A.2 demanding defendants for repayment of borrowed amount. Ex.A.2 was issued to the defendants on 08-10-2016. On receipt of the said notice, defendants gave reply notice to the plaintiff on 15-10-2016 Raising contention that there is no passing of consideration and mortgage deed was executed by the plaintiff by using force against them, and 3rd point is that the mortgaged property is an assigned land and it is not alienable or mortgage to any 3rd parties as per the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands Prohibition Act.

14. 2nd defendant who is wife the 1st defendant in her evidence produced house site patta issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tadipatri which stands in her name and the said property was mortgaged by the defendants herein and the 2nd document on which defendants relied upon is Ex.B.2. It is the certificate issued by the Mandal Surveyor that the said property stands in the name of 2nd defendant and located in Tadipatri village fields as AW land/ (Banjaru) and it is house property. The identification of the property in respect of suit property not denied by the defendants.

O.S.No.109 OF 2017 Page No. 6 of 7

15. 2nd defendant in the cross examination admitted that the mortgage deed i.e., Ex.A.1 contains signature of her and also 1st defendant who is her husband. The admission made by the defendants on their side that she acknowledged the receipt of consideration of Rs.4,50,000/-, but the evidence of P.Ws.2 and P.W.3 do not establish the proof of acknowledgment to the sum of amount and their presence at the time of execution of document, not established. The plaintiff choose to examine P.Ws.2 and P.W.3 in order to establish execution of mortgage deed and passing of consideration, but both the witnesses denied the signatures on the mortgage deed. Though the plaintiff choose to cross examine her own witness, no facts elicited relating to the passing of consideration to the defendants.

16. Though the defendants admitted their signatures on Ex.A.1, it is the fact through the evidence of D.W.2 that house site patta issued in respect of

Government land and the name of defendants was reflected in the acquaintance register maintained in the Office of Tahsildar, it shows that the suit property is an assigned land and not alienable, not transferable to any private persons.

17. As the plaintiff failed to establish the fact of passing of consideration the plaintiff is not entitle for recovery of suit amount. Hence the suit is liable for dismissed.

Issue No.3

18.In the result, this suit is dismissed with costs.

Judgment dictated to stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 29th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- M. Kasi Viswanadha Achary

Civil Judge(Senior Division),

Gooty.

O.S.No.109 OF 2017 Page No. 7 of 7

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined for plaintiff:-

P.W.1: Gondi Rama Lakshmamma

P.W.2: M.Venkata Ramana

P.W.3: K.Praveen Kumar

Witnesses examined for defendant:

D.W.1: Kommera Ananthamma

D.W.2: P.Rajak Vali

D.W.3: P.Rama Mohan

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A1Original Registered Simple Mortgage Deed dt.12.4.2012 executed by defendants in favour of plaintiff

Ex.A2Office copy of legal notice dt.8.10.2016 got issued by plaintiff to the defendants.

Ex.A3Postal Acknowledgment of Defendant NO.2

Ex.A4Reply notice dt.15.10.2016 got issued by the defendants to the plaintiff.

Exhibits marked for defendant:

Ex.B.1House site patta issued by Mandal Revenue Office, Tadipatri in the name of defendant no.2 on 24.3.1997 under H.S.No.6/1406.

Ex.B.2Certificate dt.10.11.2022 issued by Mandal Surveyor, Tadipatri under R.C.No.317/2022

Ex.B.3Verified attested copy of acquaintance register.

Sd/- M. Kasi Viswanadha Achary

Civil Judge(Senior Division),

Gooty.