Smt M.Madhuri, B.L.,

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: SMT. M.MADHURI,

VII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA.

FAC V ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,VIJAYAWADA.

TUESDAY THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017

O.S.NO.95/1995 , OS 691/1996 AND OS 466/1999

OS.NO.95/1995

Between:

Smt.Adusumilli Chinnamma… Plaintif

A N D

1) Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad

2) Nimmagadda Dhana Ratna Prasad

3) Nimmagadda Sivarama Prasad

4) Nimmagadda Udaya Bhaskara Durga Bhavani Prasad

5) Nimmagadda Rama Prasad

6) Nimmagadda Lalitha Prasad

7) Nimmagadda Bhanu Prasad

8) Smt.Kosaraju Durga Bhavani

9) Smt.Potluri Lakshmi Kantha

10) Smt.Potluri Jayalakshmi

11) Approach Computers, Rep. by its Managing Partner, R.Kumar Raja.

12) Potluri Krishna Murthy

13) C.R.Ravichandran

14) Andhra Bank, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Eluru Road.

15) A.P. Book Distributors.

16) The Hindu Paper Office

17) Bank of Baroda, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Vijayawada.

18) Nimmagadda Bala Bhaskara Krishna Prasad (18th defendant is added as per the orders Of High Court of Judicature, A.P., Hyderabad In CRP.No.4625/2001)

19) Nimmagadda Venkata Ramani (19th defendant is added as per the orders Of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.1542/2004,

Dated 15.3.2005)

20) Nimmagadda Syamala Devi (20th defendant is added as per the orders Of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.163/2005,

Dated 15.3.2005) … Defendants

OS.NO.691/1996

Between:

2

Nimmagadda Bhanu Prasad… Plaintif

A N D

1) Nimmagadda Ram Prasad

2) V.V.Ramani

3) N.Syamala Devi

4) Nimmagadda Siva Ram Prasad (4th defendant is added as per the orders of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.253/2007,

Dated 21.1.2008) … Defendants

OS.NO.466/1999

Between:

Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad… Plaintif

A N D

1) Nimmagadda Dhana Ratna Prasad

2) Nimmagadda Ram Prasad

3) Nimmagadda Lalitha Prasad

4) Nimmagadda Bhanu Prasad

5) Nimmagadda Shyam Prasad 6)Andhra Pradesh Book Distributors.

7) Swrnandhra Telugu Daily

8) Andhra Bank, Eluru Road.

9) Bank of Baroda, Musuem Road Branch, Vijayawada.

10) Smt.Adusumilli Chinnamma (10th defendant is added as per the orders of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.2210 /2003,

Dated 26.6.2003)

11) Nimmagadda Sivarama Prasad (11th defendant is added as per the orders Of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.254 /2007,

Dated 21.1.2008) … Defendants

These suits are coming on this day before me on in the presence of Sri M.Lakshman, Advocate for the plaintif, Sri S.Rajendra Prasad, Advocate for the 1st defendant, the defendants 3 and 5 are in person; Sri V.Veerasalingam, Advocate for the defendants 6 and 7; Sri K.Laxmi Pathi, Advocate for the 14th defendant; Sri D.T.Vyas, Advocate for the 17th defendant; Sri Ch.Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the 19th defendant, of Sri CH.G.R., Advocate for the 20TH defendant and the defendants 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18 remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

The suit in OS.No.95/1995 is comprehensive suit originally filed for partition of item Nos. 1 to 5 of the plaint schedule properties against the 3 defendants 1 to 17. Subsequently as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court under various IAs, the defendants 18 to 20 were added and item No.6 is also added to the plaint schedule properties.

2)The suit in OS.No.691/1996 is filed by the plaintif who is the 7th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 originally against the sole defendant i.e. the 5th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 for his eviction of the plaint schedule property (which is item No.2 of plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/1995) subsequently as per the orders in diferent IAs defendants 2 to 4 were added.

3)The suit in OS.No.466/1999 is filed for partition of the plaint schedule properties by the plaintif, who is the 1st defendant in OS.No.95/1995 originally against the defendants 1 to 9 who are some of the defendants in

OS.No.95/1995 and one Syam Prasad. Subsequently the defendants 10 and

11 are added as per the orders in diferent IAs.

4)For better appreciation I would like to refer the parties by way of table:

S.N OS.NO.95/19 OS.NO.691/19 OS.NO.466/19

Name of the Party

o 95 96 99

Smt.Adsumilli 1Plaintif -10th defendant Chinnamma NimmagaddaBabu 21st defendant-Plaintif Rajendra Prasad NimmagaddaDhana 32nd defendant - 1st defendant Ratna Prasad Nimmagadda 4 3rd defendant 4th defendant - Sivarama Prasad NimmagaddaUdaya 5BhaskaraDurga 4th defendant - - Bhavani Prasad Nimmagadda Rama 6 5th defendant1st defendant 2nd defendant Prasad Nimmagadda Lalitha 7 6th defendant - 3rd defendant Prasad NimmagaddaBhanu 8 7th defendantPlaintif 4th defendant Prasad 9Smt.Kosaraju Durga 8th defendant - - 4

Bhavani Smt.PotluriLakshmi 10 9th defendant - - Kantha 10th 11Smt.Potluri Jayalakshmi - - defendant Approach Computers, 11th 12Rep. by its Managing - - defendant Partner: R.Kumar Raja. 12th defendant 13Potluri Krishna Murthy - - 13th 14 C.R.Ravichandran - - defendant Andhra Bank, Rep. by 14th 15its Branch Manager, - 8th defendant defendant Manager, Eluru Road. 15th defendant 16A.P. Book Distributors. - 6th defendant 16th 17The Hindu Paper Office - - defendant Bank of Baroda, Rep. 18by its Branch Manager,17th defendant - 9th defendant Vijayawada NimmagaddaBala BhaskaraKrishna Prasad (18th defendant is added as per the18th 19 - - orders Hon’ble Highdefendant Court of Judicature, A.P. Hyderabadin

CRP.No.4625/2001)

Nimmagadda Venkata Ramani (19th defendant 20is added as per the19th defendant -- orders in IA.No.1542 / 2004 Nimmagadda Syamala Devi (20th defendant is added as per the 2120th defendant3rd defendant - ordersin

IA.No.163/2005, dated

15.3.2005. VallurupalliVenkata 22-2nd defendant- Ramani NimmagaddaSyam 23--5th defendant Prasad SwarnandhraTelugu 24--7th defendant Daily

5)Though there are some diferences with regard to the boundaries from item No.2 of plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/1995 and in OS.No.466/1999 it is claimed by all parties item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in 5

OS.No.95/1995 is the plaint schedule property in OS.No.691/1996. It is an

admitted fact that item Nos.4 and 5 of plaint schedule properties in

OS.No.95/1995 are item No.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties in

OS.No.466/1999.

6)As per the orders in IA.No.1263/2001, dated 22.7.2002 in

OS.No.95/1995, OS.No.466/1999 is clubbed, to record common evidence in

OS.No.95/1995. Subsequently as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in

CRP.No.5820/2005, 1071/2006 and 1072/2006 all the three suits i.e.

OS.No.95/1995, OS.No.691/1996 and OS.No.466/1999 are clubbed and

common evidence is recorded in comprehensive of suit in OS.No.95/1995.

7)The admitted facts of the case are the defendants 1 to 7 and one

Nimmagadda Syam Prasad who is the 5th defendant in OS.No.466/1999 are the sons and the plaintif, defendants 8 to 10 are the daughters of one Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and Venkataravamma. The 18th defendant is the son of the 3rd defendant, 20th defendant is wife and 19th defendant is the daughter of the 5th defendant in OS.No.95/1995.

8)The case of the plaintif (10th defendant in OS.No.466/09) is their mother died intestate on 3.10.1989 and she was the absolute owner of item No.1 of plaint schedule property having acquired the same with her own Sridhana property. Their father also died on 3.10.1992 and he was the owner of the item Nos. 2 to 6 of schedule property besides cash and other movables. After the death of their mother Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, her entire estate 6 devolved upon her husband i.e. their father, herself and the defendants 1 to 10 Under Hindu Succession Act and they got 1/12th share each and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the estate left by their mother

Venkataravamma. During her life time she let out the entire item No.1 of the plaint schedule building and she used to get the rent @Rs.6000/- per month.

From 3.10.1989 the 7th defendant has been collecting the rents. As on the date of filing of the suit the 7th defendant is liable to pay 1/12th share similarly he has also amounts S.B. Account in Syndicate Bank, Labbipet Branch,

Vijayawada in which also she has 1/12th share. She further pleaded items

Nos.2 to 6 are acquired by his father with ancestral nucleus and improved by him. Originally their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao got 8 sons i.e. defendants 1 to 7 and Syam Prasad and he left the house in the year 1970 without any information to his family till today or seen by him any of his kith and kin. As such she got 1/9th share and joint possession in the plaint schedule property. Therefore as he presumed to be died and his share devolved on their mother Venkataravamma. On the death of Venkatravamma, the share of her son Syam Prasad devolved upon her husband Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, herself and the defendant 1 to 10. As Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao has also got 1/108th share in the share of

Syamprasad and as such his share enlarged to 1/9th +10/108 herself and the defendants 1 to 10 got equal shares in the estate of Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao. Therefore, i.e. 1188/108 share. He further pleaded that 7 the amount of Rs.13,00,000/- is rent deposited by the Bank of Baroda (17th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 and 9th defendant in OS.No.466/99) and apart from the plaint schedule properties there are several joint family business concerns which are Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao News Agency,

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao & sons, Vijayawada, N.V.K.R. Advertising,

Vijayawada; Radha Krishna Service Station at Tadepalli, N.B.R. Prasad &

Brothers, Vijayawada and Monohar Krishna Service Station. The share of Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao devolved upon his daughters and sons equally. Though she demanded the defendants 1 to 10 to cooperate with her for partition and separate possession of the same they did not cooperate with her. On the other hand, the 7th defendant got issued a publication in Eenadu daily, dated 23.3.1993 to the efect that Venkatravamma has executed a will, on 10.12.1986 bequeathing her entire property in his favour which is not correct and it must be fabricated, concocted and forged one. Therefore, he got issued a notice, dated 23.2.1993 demanding the defendants 1 to10 to partition the same. Having received the same they did not issue any reply and kept quit. Again on 6.3.1993 he issued another notice as there are some typographical errors in the earlier notice, except the 1st defendant others acknowledged the same. The 7th defendant alone got issued reply notice on 17.3.1993 with all false allegations. The 11th defendant is tenant to item No.1, defendants 12 and 13 are the tenants of ground floor of item No.3, the 8 defendants 14 to 16 are the tenants in item No.4 and the 17th defendant is tenant in item No.4. Hence he filed the suit.

9)The version of the 1st defendant (plaintif in OS.No.466/99) is himself and the defendants 2,5,6,7 and Syamprasad purchased the item No.4 of the plaint schedule property (item No.1 in OS.No.466/99) under a registered sale deed,

dated 12.10.1971 for a valid consideration of Rs.55,000/- from one Palaparthi

Poornandam and others. Similarly himself and the defendants 2, 5, 6 and 7 (defendants 1 to 4 in OS.No.466/99) purchased the item No.5 (item No.2 in

OS.No.466/99) of the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed,

dated 31.1.1978 from Kasinadhuni Sambasivarao. Therefore, they are the joint

owners of the said property, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and they let out the item No.4 to the 14th defendant (8th defendant in

OS.No.466/99) and item No.5 is let out to the 17th defendant (9th defendant in

OS.No.466/99) The 5th defendant (2nd defendant in OS.No.466/99) has been

looking after the afairs of the building even without their consent since 6 years prior to the filing of the suit and also he let out the same without the consent of the other joint owners to some part of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property (Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/99) to the 15th defendant (6th defendant in OS.No.466.99) and 7th defendant in

OS.No.466/1999 and collecting the rents. He is also not rendering proper

accounts for the amounts collected by him and has been misappropriating the same for his own benefit. While so, in January, 1997 the 14th defendant (8th 9 defendant in OS.No.466/1999) vacated the premised in their occupation and kept the same under the lock. But they did not hand over the keys of the tenanted building. Subsequently they filed OS. No.1358/99 on the file of I

Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada for deposit of the keys. They used to credit the rents upto 31.12.1996 in the joint account of himself and other brothers i.e. the defendants 2, 5, 6 and 7 (defendants 2 to 4 in OS.No.466/99).

Similarly the 17th defendant (9th defendant in OS.No.466/1999) is in occupation of item No.5 of the plaint schedule property (item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/1999) since 1.4.1980 taking undue advantage of the situation did not even enhanced the rent from 7900/- as agreed by him. He has been depositing the rent to the credit of himself and other joint owners bearing Account No.3320 in 17thdefendant Bank (9th defendant in

OS.No.466/1999) and the amount is lying in the said account. Therefore he is

entitled for 1/6th share in the agreed rents in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property (item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/1999) as well

as 1/5th share in item No.5 of the plaint schedule property (item No.1 of the

plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/1999).

10)The 2nd defendant remained exparte.

11)The 3rd defendant (4th defendant in OS.No.699/96) filed written statement contending that their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao is native of Dokiparru village and from there he migrated to Machilipatnam and finally migrated to Vijayawada in or about 1937. Subsequently he started business with the income derived from the ancestral properties at Dokiparru 10 village of Krishna District. He being kartha of the joint family used to look after the same for and on behalf of the joint family. Thereafter, he disposed of the ancestral properties and with the said income he developed the business, with the income from the ancestral nucleus he developed the financial position of the family and acquired the properties i.e. item No.1 to 6 of the plaint schedule properties. He further pleaded that item No.1 of plaint schedule property is purchased by his father in the name of his wife Venkatravamma. In fact the name of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao i.e. mother of the plaintif and defendants 1 to 10 is Venkatrama Manoharam but not

Venkataravamma. It is nothing but Benami transaction. Therefore, though the said property was purchased in her name, the afairs of the said property were looked after by their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao being

Kartha of the joint family. Being coparceners, the defendants 1, 2, 4 to 7 and

Syam Prasad and their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao got each 1/9th share in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. However, the item

No.4 is purchased in the name of the defendants 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and Syam Prasad whose where abouts’ are not known even by the date of purchase of the said property and the item No.5 was purchased in the name of the defendants 1, 2,5, 6 and 7 by their father. Item No.6 of the plaint schedule property is purchased in the name of their father and in the names of the defendants 5, 6, 7 and Nimmaggadda Subrahmanya Prasad i.e. son of the 2nd defendant.

Hence item Nos.4 and 5 (item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property in 11

OS.No.466/99) also are joint family properties and he is being the coparcener

is having 1/9th share in the said two items also.

12)The 4th defendant remained exparte.

13)For the sake of convenience and understanding the version of the 7th defendant is mentioned before the version of the 5th defendant.

The written statement filed by 7th defendant (Plaintif in OS.No.691/1996 and the 4th defendant in OS.No.466/99) is adopted by the 6th defendant (3rd defendant in OS.No.466/99). He pleaded that their mother Venkatravamma was the absolute owner of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and she enjoyed the same, during her life time. On 10.12.1986 she executed a will in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing the said property and some other properties in his favour. The said will is within the knowledge of all her children including the plaintif and also her husband Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao. As per the said will after her death he took possession of the same and her other properties and has been enjoying the same. Item Nos.

2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties are the self acquired properties of their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and he never treated them as joint family properties. The said Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao has been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties till his death on 3.10.1992. Their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao executed a

Will on 7.3.1990 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing all his properties in his favour to the knowledge of the plaintif and his other children.

Therefore after the death of their father, he took the same and enjoying the 12 same. Similarly the item No.6 of the plaint schedule property was purchased by Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, Nimmagadda Subramanya Prasad i.e. the son of the 2nd defendant, defendants 5, 6 and 7 jointly. As such their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao has got 1/5th share in item No.6 of the plaint schedule property. Under the said Will, he bequeathed his 1/5th share in item No.6 of the plaint schedule property to the 4th defendant, as such the plaintif has no right in item No.6 of the plaint schedule property. He further pleaded that item No.4 of the plaint schedule property is self acquired property of the defendants 1, 2, 5, 6, himself and Syamprasad. The 1/6th joint share of Syam Prasad devolved on their mother Venkatravamma which is bequeathed to him. Hence, the plaintif has no share in the said item also. He denied the other allegations in the plaint as to her share in the plaint schedule property and also denied the version of the defendants 5, 19 and 20 in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property.

14)As the plaintif in OS.No.691/1996 in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property he pleaded at the request of the 5th defendant, who is the 1st defendant therein, has been residing in the property. Thus by the time of death of their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao the 1st defendant has been staying in the said item. After his death when he demanded him to vacate and deliver the property by virtue of the will executed by their father, he requested to allow him to continue in the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs.3000/- and continued in the possession as a tenant. The tenancy 13 commenced from month to month commencing from 1st day of calendar month. He paid the monthly rents regularly till October, 1995 and from

November, 1995 onwards he committed willful default in payment of monthly rents. As he wants to have the building for his own use, he issued a notice,

dated 9.8.1996 terminating the tenancy ending by 31.8.1996 but the 5th

defendant/1st defendant therein got it returned with false endorsement and he did not vacate the same. Therefore, he is entitled to evict him and also the defendants 2 and 3 therein (the defendants 19 and 20 in OS.No.95/95).

15)The 5th defendant (1st defendant in OS.No.691/1996 and 2nd defendant in

OS.No.466/1999) pleaded that item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is the

joint family property and it is acquired from out of joint family funds and kept in the name of their mother Late Smt.Nimmagadda Venkatravamma as benami. Item No.2 is no way connected to the joint family or to any of the parties and it is excluded from the plaint schedule property. Their family had business and though the properties of their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao are mostly self acquired, but all the properties are treated as joint family properties. Since he attained adult hood he had to enable his parents to bring up all the children in a manner befitting the status of the family.

Keeping in view of the troubles which his father was facing in order to bring up all the 12 children, he discontinued his education and plunged into the family business. Thus toiled hard to the extent possible. He married 20th defendant in 1968. At the time, as per their custom her parents gave a sum of 14

Rs.40,000/- in cash towards Pasupu Kumkuma in addition to certain other landed properties. The said amount of Rs.40,000/- was entrusted to their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, who utilized the same for joint family purpose and in consideration thereof he gave item No.2 of the plaint schedule property to the 20th defendant in the year 1982 itself in the presence of her parents, himself, other family members, relatives and friends of the family. Subsequently at the time of marriage of his daughter i.e., 19th defendant which was celebrated in the year 1992, the same was given to her towards her Pasupu Kumkuma. The will executed by Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao is not a valid and genuine, it is forged and fabricated and it is not executed in a sound and disposing state of mind. Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property belongs to the joint family properties and item Nos. 4 and 5 belong to himself, defendants 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7and as such the plaintif and other defendants are not entitled for any share therein. He further pleaded that he never collected any rents from the 13th defendant and it is the 1st defendant herein used to collect the rents from him. Except Radha Krishna

Service Station, Tadepalli and Vijayawada there are no other business as contended by the plaintif. There is no landlord and tenant relationship between himself and the 7th defendant (plaintif in OS.No.691/96), he never paid any rent to him much less Rs.3000/-. He is not entitled for any arrears of rent and the quit notice, dated 9-8-1996 issued by the 7th defendant is not valid under law. Hence the suit filed by the 7th defendant in OS.No.691/96 is 15 liable to be dismissed. He further pleaded that the 1st defendant (Plaintif in

OS.No.466/99) himself played an active role and got properties leased out to

the defendants 14, 15 and 17(the defendants 6, 8 and 9 in OS.No.466/99). He further pleaded that the 1st defendant (plaintif in OS.No.466/1999) got himself divided from the family properties though in fact he has to shoulder the responsibilities for the properties that remained joint. As per the arrangement arrived among them he is entitled to collect the rents from the 7th defendant in

OS.No.466/99 and can appropriate the same.

16)Though the 20th defendant filed written statement separately which is adopted by the 19th defendant (2nd defendant in OS.No.691/96) the same is on the lines of the written statement of the 5th defendant.

17)The defendants 8 to 13 remained exparte.

18)The 14th defendant (the 8th defendant in OS.No.466/1999) pleaded that their bank taken the ground floor of the building (item No.4 of the plaint schedule property) for its branch with efect from 1.4.1977 from the defendants 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 and it has been extended from time to time by mutual consent. While so on 25.11.1996 they sent notice to the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7, stating that tenancy is terminated with efect from 31.12.1996 and accordingly they vacated the premises on 31.12.1996 and called upon them to come to the said building for collecting the keys and take possession of the same. It was duly acknowledged by the defendants 1, 2, 6 and 7, but the notice sent to the 5th defendant is returned with an endorsement not claimed.

However, the 1st defendant authorized the defendants 6 and 7 by his letter, 16

dated 16.1.1997 jointly or individually to take possession of the premises. The

2nd and 6th defendants also gave authorization letters to the 7th defendant to take possession of the premises. Further the plaintif got issued a registered notice to him confirming the above facts for which he issued a suitable reply,

dated 24.7.1997 informing the plaintif that the authorization from the 5th

defendant is also required and in view of the conflicting versions, that all the authorization letters should be attested by notary public, but the 1st defendant has not given any such authority as required by them and they did not come jointly to receive the keys from him. On the other hand prior to 9.8.1996 the 7th defendant sent a registered notice to the defendants 1, 2, 5 and 6 and also other tenants for partition of the properties etc. and also directed not to deliver possession of the tenanted premises or handover keys of the tenanted premises to the 5th defendant. Hence on 24.7.1997 they sent a reply under those circumstances they were constrained to file Inter Pleader suit in

OS.No.1358/1999 on the file I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada. As

they already vacated the premises, there is no landlord and tenant relationship between them and deposited the rents before the court in the said suit. They also paid all the arrears of rent till 31.12.1996 in the current account No.2 of the Babu Rajendra Prasad and others as per the usual practice. The said suit was decreed and as per the directions of the court the keys were delivered to the 6th defendant.

19)The defendants 15, 16 and 18 remained exparte.

17

20)The 17th defendant (9th defendant in OS.No.466/99) pleaded that he has taken item No.5 of the plaint schedule property from Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao on lease. After his death they are depositing the monthly rent in the account of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in view of the family disputes among the family members of late Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao. It is not necessary party to the suit. The plaintif has no cause of action against it and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.

21. Basing on the above pleadings, the then preceding officer settled the following issues for trial in OS.No.95/1995

1) Whether the deceased Venkataravamma was the absolute owner of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and if it is so, the will, dated 10.12.1986 is true, valid and binding on the plaintif?

2) Whether the items No.2 to 5 of the schedule are the ancestral properties of Late Venkata Krishna Rao?

3)Whether the Will, dated 7.3.1990 in favour of D7 is true, valid and binding on the plaintif?

4)Whether the item No.5 is the self acquired property of D1, D2, D5 to D7?

5) Whether the D17 is a necessary party to this suit?

6)Whether the plaintif is entitled to the partition of the property as prayed for?

7)Whether the plaintif is entitled for the mesne profits as claimed?

8)Whether the plaintif is entitled for the future profits?

9) To what relief?

On 8-6-05 Addl. Issue were framed as per the orders in IA.No.1542/2004 and IA.No.163/2005 after impleding the 19th and 20th defendants respectively.

1)Whether item no.2 of schedule property was gifted to Smt. Nimmagadda Syamala Devi in 1982?

18

On 13-12-2006 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders in

IA.No.983/2005 after amending the plaint.

1)Whether item no.6 is also joint family property under D6 entitled to possession or not?

2)Whether the plaintif is not entitled to claim any share in the joint 1/5th share of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in item No.6 of plaint schedule property or not?

3)Whether the suit is properly valued or not?

ii)The then preceding officer settled the following issues for trial in

OS.No.O.S.691/1996

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover Rs.36,000/- being arrears of rent from November, 1995 to October, 1996?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled to evict the defendant from suit property?

3)Whether the will dated 7-3-90 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

4)Whether the suit property was gifted to Syamala Devi, W/o. Respondent in 1982?

5)Whether the quit notice is valid?

6)To what relief?

On 8.6.2005 Addl. Issue was framed as per the orders in IA.No.1076 / 2004 and 1541/2004 after impleding the defendants 2 and 3 respectively

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to seek eviction of defendants from the schedule property?

iii) The then preceding officer settled the following issues for trial in

OS.No.O.S.466/99

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to the partition of item nos.1 and 2 of the schedule properties as prayed for?

2)Whether the 7th defendant is liable to render accounts as prayed for?

3)To what relief?

19

On 2-7-2003 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders in

IA.No.2210/2002 after impleading the 10th defendant.

1)Whether the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property in nature?

2)Whether D5 is no more under law?

3)Whether the plaintif is entitled to a share in the plaint schedule property?

On 29-3-2012 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders, in

IA.No.2210/2002 after impleading the 10th defendant.

1)Whether the defendants 10 and 11 have got any right and entitled to claim any share in the plaint schedule properties?

2)Whether the defendants 10 and 11 are necessary and proper parties to the suit?

22)During the course of trial, before clubbing with suit in OS.No.95/1995 on behalf of the plaintif, PW1 and PW2 are examined and Exs.A1 to A31 are marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 to DW8 are examined and Exs. B1 to B196 are marked in OS.No.95/1995.

23)During the course of trial, before clubbing with suit in O.S.No.95/1995 on behalf of the plaintif, PW1 is examined and Exs.A1 to A40 are marked in

OS.No.691/1996.

24Heard both sides and defendant 6 and 7 and 14th defendant filed written arguments also.

25.ISSUE No.1 (in OS.No.95/1995):

1) Whether the deceased Venkataravamma was the absolute owner of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and if it is so, the will, dated 10.12.1986 is true, valid and binding on the plaintif?

i)The version of the plaintif is their mother Venkatravamma was the original owner of the property of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property having acquired the same with her Sridhana and she died intestate leaving behind them.

20 ii)According to the plaintif, the defendants 6 and 7, item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is the absolute property of their mother

Venkataravamma. But according to the defendants 3 and 5 it is purchased by

Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in the name of his wife

Venkataravamma as benami. According to the 3rd defendant all the properties are acquired from the income derived by her landed property. Whereas according to the 5th defendant though the properties are self acquired properties of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao but they are treated as joint family properties.

iii)In order to shore up his contention by way of affidavit filed in lieu of his chief-examination while reiterating her version she got marked the

Exs.A1 to A31. In Ex.A1 notice, dated 23.2.1993 and she pleaded the same with regard to the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. During the cross examination by DW5, PW1 categorically stated that her mother purchased the item No.1 with the amount derived her by selling her landed property. As culled out from the evidence adduced by the parties and cross examination item No.1 of the plaint schedule property purchased by their mother

Venkataravamma under Ex.B8 sale deed, dated 22.9.1969. In order to shore up her contention that their mother got Stredhana property from the income from it she purchased the item No.1 the plaintif produced Exs.A28 and A29 (Exs.B94 and B95) sale deeds, dated 5.4.1965 executed by Venkataravamma and her sister. In fact Ex.B94 sale deed, dated 5.4.1965 is one of the sale deeds executed by their mother is produced by DW8 i.e. the 5th defendant himself. As could be seen from the recitals in Ex.B94 sale deed and the said document shows the said property is devolved on the mother of the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10 and her sister from their parents. It may be a fact that it is elicited during the cross examination of PW1 by the 3rd defendant that on the reverse of Ex.A8 postal acknowledgement there is an endorsement to the 21 efect that the consideration was paid by the husband of Venkataravamma.

But by itself it cannot be said that the property is purchased by Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao as Benami.

iv)On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7, contended Exs.B21 to B25, are the income tax assessment orders filed by

Late Venkataravamma from 1983 to 1991 she showed item No.1 as her property in her income tax returns and he also showed the rent from it in her income tax returns. This itself probablises the property was her absolute property. Moreover Ex.B25 was submitted by Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao on behalf of his wife, who died on 3.10.1989. In Ex.B25 there is a note that the assessee is died on 3.10.1989 therefore, the rental income ofered only upto September, 1989.

v)DW1 and DW2 [1st defendant and 6th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 and DW1 is plaintif and DW2 is the 3rd defendant in OS.No.466/99] deposed on the lines of their version by way of their respective affidavits filed in lieu of their chief examination.

vi)It may be a fact that it is elicited from Ex.B24 and B25 are the income refund orders for the assessment years 1989-1990 and 1990-1991,

dated 14.3.1991 do not bear the signatures of Venkataravamma, but it cannot

be ignored that it bears acknowledgment from the income tax officer.

Moreover Exs.B21 and B22 are the income tax assessment orders of

Smt.N.Venkatravamma for the assessment years 1986-1987 and 1987-1988 bears the signatures of Venkatramma. Therefore, the filing of the income tax returns by showing the income of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property as her separate property coupled with Exs,A24 and A25 and B8 proves Item No.1 22 of the plaint schedule property is absolute of property of the mother of the plaintif.

vii)Be it noted that the plaintif also examined PW2 and he is cross examined on behalf of the plaintif, but subsequently when he was recalled for the purpose of cross examination on behalf of the 3rd defendant as he did not turn up and the plaintif filed a memo stating that she could not secure him, therefore her chief examination affidavit is eschewed. But it will not throw away her evidence in her cross examination conducted by some of the contesting defendants. Since some facts are elicited during his cross examination. The then Preceding Officer while passing the orders on the docket she categorically mentioned ‘chief affidavit is only eschewed’ and not the entire evidence.

viii)The very fact that after demise of Venkataravamma her husband

Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao filed returns on her behalf itself probablises that the property never treated as joint family property. Therefore, this proves item No.1 of the property is the absolute property of their mother of the plaintif.

ix)At this juncture it is here pertinent to mention the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7 (7th defendant is the plaintif in

OS.No.691/1996 and 3rd and 4th defendants in OS.No.466/99) that PW2 in her

chief examination deposed that Venkataravamma possessed one property.

Therefore, the evidence of PW2 is also proves that the item No.1 of the plaint 23 schedule property is the absolute property. But the evidence of chief examination of PW2 is eschewed on 5.11.2015. Therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration.

x)The defendants 3 and 5 contended that the property was purchased by Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao as binami in the name of his wife. But Exs.A28 and A29 are the sale deed shows she has some

Sridhana property from her parents. It is an admitted fact that

Venkataravamma has only one sister and they have no brothers. As such it probablises the version of the plaintif, defendants 6 and 7 that the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property (item No.4 of the plaint schedule property in

OS.No.466/199) is the absolute property of Venkataravamma.

xi)Though the 5th defendant (1st defendant in OS.No.691/1996 and 2nd defendant in OS.No.466/1999) as DW8 deposed on the lines of his version but the same is not substantiated. DW2 categorically deposed that there are no

Binami transactions in the family. Moreover, as the defendants 3, 19 and 20 did not come into witness box to depose on oath as to their version and make themselves available for cross-examination, therefore, their version cannot be taken into consideration especially when the version of the plaintif is substantiated by Exs.A28 and A29 to show she has source of income to purchase the property.

xii) DW2 and DW3 who are the defendants 6 and 7 by way of their respective affidavits categorically deposed that LateNimmagadda 24

Venkataravamma executed will on 10.12.1986 in a sound and disposing state of mind. They got marked the said will as Ex.B7. It is here apposite to mention that Ex.B7 is marked through DW1 during his cross examination. DW1 was cross examined by the defendants 5, 6, 7 by the plaintif at length. But later he was not turned up subsequently the 3rd defendant filed IA.No.1/2015 for cross examination of PW1 and PW2 and DW1 to DW8, but DW1 was not turned up. As such his chief examination was eschewed. But when the 1st defendant cross examined at length by the rival parties as well as the plaintif apart from the defendants 6 and 7 the admissions elicited during the cross examination of DW1 cannot be eschewed that is why it seems the then Preceding officer consciously mentioned his chief affidavit is eschewed and it is not the entire evidence is eschewed. Therefore, his evidence in the cross examination as not eschewed can be taken into consideration. Ex.B7 is the Will, dated 10.12.1986 marked through DW1 cross examination and he admitted that the said will is executed by their mother.

xiii)DW2 who is the 6th defendant categorically deposed that himself and his father are the attestors to the said will Ex.B7 executed by their mother.

It may be a fact that the evidence of DW2 is not verbatim as annunciated in 63 of Indian Succession Act. In S.A.Quddus Vs. S.Veerappa, Reported

in AIR 1994 Karn. 20 it is observed that the law does not emphasis

that the witness must use the language of the Section to prove the

required merits thereof.

25 xiv)However he categorically deposed that himself and his father and mother were present at the time of execution of will. He further categorically deposed after the contents in Ex.B7 will, dated 10.12.1986 were read over only the executant signed on it and he was present at that time. He further categorically deposed that the will is executed by the executants at her house.

It is elicited from him that the 1st two sheets are stamp papers and the remaining two papers on white paper. He further deposed that stamp papers show that they were purchased on 12.9.1986 but his evidence is that Ex.B7 was typed. However it is elicited from him that the date is mentioned in ink.

His evidence further goes to show that the stamp papers were purchased in advance initially a draft was prepared. He further deposed that he was not present at the time of preparing draft. But his evidence goes to show that the contents were read over to the executants in his presence and then he signed.

It is to be noted that the another attestor to Ex.B7 is none other than the father of the plaintif and defendants 1 to 10 and is no more. Therefore by examining DW2 there is a sufficient compliance of Section 63 of Indian

Evidence Act and Section 68 of Indian Succession Act. The plaintif,

DW2 and DW3 are cross examined as to discrepancy in the name of the mother of the plaintif and the defendants. Exs.A28 and A29 her name is mentioned as Venkata Manoharamma whereas Ex.B7 mentioned as

Venkatravamma. It is suggested to PW1 by DW3 her mother name is

Venkataravamma but not Venkata Manoharamma. But it may be noted that all 26 the parties categorically deposed that including the 5th defendant, DW1, DW3 she was called at Venkataravamma and Venkata Mahoharamma.

xv)Under Ex.B7 the mother of the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10 bequeathed the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property which is shown as A schedule and also all the amounts in her bank account N.S.S., fixed deposits under B schedule are bequeathed to her youngest son Nimmagadda Bhanu

Prasad (7th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 and the plaintif in OS.No.691/1996 and the 4th defendant in OS.No.466/1999) under C schedule i.e. gold, diamonds etc. bequeathed to her 4th daughter.

xvi)It may be a fact that there is no reference to other sons and also as to another son Syam Prasad leaving the house in Ex.B7 will. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7, the evidence of

DW3 i.e. 6th defendant goes to show that the 7th defendant is not settled and his evidence goes to show he completed B.Tech in the year 1986 that means by the time of execution of will he was pursuing studies, whereas he (DW3) completed his graduation in 1968 and since then he started his work as income tax practitioner besides he has petrol bunk and other business and his wife is also lecturer in Mary Stella College. The evidence of DW1 during cross examination by the 5th defendant (DW8) also goes to show by then all are doing their respective business. The 7th defendant is youngest of all of them and he alone was not settled in life by then. Therefore as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7 there is no suspicious 27 circumstances or improbability in bequeathing to the 7th defendant under

Ex.B7. Moreover she gave all her jewelry to her 4 daughters. The evidence of

DW2 and DW3 is corroborative that after the death of their mother on the 11th day their father disclosed about Ex.B7 will executed by their mother and moreover as per bequeath the C schedule properties were distributed among their 4 daughters. Ofcourse PW1 denied the said fact. Therefore, the 7th defendant examined the 9th defendant as DW6. By way of her affidavit she deposed that in June, 1987 when she had been to Vijayawada to her parents house in connection with the delivery of her 2nd issue who was born on July, 1987 her mother informed and showed the will, dated 10.12.1986 executed by her in the presence of her father. She further categorically deposed that in the said will she described the various items of jewelry totaling to 60 Sovereigns and also categorically deposed which item was given to the plaintif, herself and defendants 8 and 10. This evidence corroborates the evidence of DW2 and DW3. In the cross examination the will was showed to her about one month prior to her delivery. She deposed that on the 11th day after the death of her mother at about 3.30 P.M. the property was distributed among her sisters. She further deposed that as the 7th defendant is not at settled by then he bequeathed the house property to him. Her evidence in the cross examination by the plaintif further goes to show after gave amount to her and with the same he purchased the property at Vijayawada subsequent to marriage. Ofcourse PW1 though cross examined by the defendants 6 and 7 on 28 the lines her father purchased a site in her name and gave amounts to construct house she denied the same. But she gave evasive reply that she does not know her father purchased sites and got constructed houses for her sisters. It has to be observed that DW8 is none other than own sister of the defendants 7, 8 and 10. Had the mother has not shown the will and she has not received the gold items of her mother as deposed by her there is no reason for her to depose falsehood. It is suggested to her that the 7th defendant promised to give Rs.50,000/- to her to purchase the gold chain and ofcourse the same is not denied. But I do not find any probability in the said suggestion because had the 7th defendant simply promised to give Rs.50,000/- she depose falsehood because if the plaint schedule property is partitioned her share will be much more high. Therefore, the evidence of DW8 is also probablising the evidence of DW2 as to execution of Ex.B7 will.

xvii)It may be further noted that had they have not executed Ex.B7 will, there is no reason for the defendants 1 and 6 (DW1 and DW2) to admit the will who are none other than own brothers of the plaintif and 7th defendant because in the absence of such will they will also got share in item

No.1 of the plaint schedule property. It has to be seen that even the plaintif pleaded that their mother was in possession of her property till her death i.e.

3.10.1989 and he categorically deposed that from 3.10.1989 the 1st defendant is enjoying the property by collecting the rents from the tenants. This also probablises the will in acted upon.

29 xiii)It may be noted that though the defendants 6 and 7 contended by referring to Exs.B26 to B46 property tax receipts are in the name of

Venkataravamma and not in the name of Bhanu Prasad. But they are not much helpful to say they are pertain to item No.1 of the plaint schedule property as they do not bear door number and they bear only assessment number and assessment number is not mentioned in the plaint schedule. However as already stated even according to the plaintif from 3.10.1989 the 7th defendant is collecting the rents of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property i.e. since the death of their mother.

xix)In the light of my forgoing discussion this issue is answered affirmatively.

26)ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.2, dt. 8.6.2005 IN OS.NO.95/1995:-

2) Whether the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property was gifted to Smt.Nimmagadda Syamala Devi in 1982?

i)The plaintif categorically pleaded Syam Prasad left the house and since 1970 his whereabouts not known to anybody. Though the 1st defendant pleaded in his written statement as well as in the plaint in OS.No.466/99 that

Syam Prasad used to visit now and then his petrol bunk at Tadepalli but he also pleaded that he does not know his whereabouts since a long time and his address is also not available to anyone. The version of the 1st defendant that now and then he used to visit his (1st defendant) petrol bunk at Tadepalli the same is not substantiate because his chief affidavit is eschewed. In the cross examination which is held on 24.7.2003 he categorically stated his where 30 abouts’ are not known from 1970. His evidence is about 15 years back i.e. 15 years prior to 2003. DW2, DW3, DW5 as well as DW3 also admitted that since 1970 Syam Prasad where abouts are not known. In Ex.B47, dated 7.8.1993 the will executed by the father of the plaintif, defendants 1 to 10 also it is categorically recited by the father of the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10,

Syam Prasad left the house as bachelor on 10.10.1970. Therefore, it is an admitted fact that the where abouts of Syam Prasad are not known to the plaintif or defendants 1 to 10 or any of the relatives since more than 7 years prior to filing the suit. Under Section 108 of Indian Evidence Act, ifit is proved that a person has not heard by his who has naturally heard of him he had been not live, a presumption arises that he is not alive. When it is nobody’s case that Syam Prasad was alive. Hence this issue is answered affirmatively.

27)ISSUE Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 in OS.NO.691/96 AND ADDL. ISSUE No.1:

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover Rs.36,000/- being arrears of rent from November, 1995 to October, 1996?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled to evict the defendant from suit property?

4)Whether the suit property was gifted to Syamala Devi, W/o. Respondent in 1982?

5)Whether the quit notice is valid?

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to seek eviction of defendants from the schedule property?

For the sake of brevity and convenience in order to avoid repetition as the evidence that is to be appreciated is common, these issues are answered together.

31

i)The plaintif who is 7th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 as DW5 in his affidavit filed in lieu of his chief examination reiterated his version and deposed the 5th defendant started living in plaint schedule property (item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/95) with the permission of their father. After his death by virtue of will Ex.A4, dated 7.3.1990 he became the absolute owner of the same, therefore when he demanded the 5th defendant to vacate the premises he requested to continue as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.3000/-, accordingly paid rents upto October, 1995 and from November, 1995 onwards he committed default. Thereupon he issued Ex.A1 quit notice on 9.8.1996 terminating the tenancy by the end of 31.8.1996, but even thereafter he did not vacate the premises and he got it returned under Ex.A2. But in the cross examination he categorically deposed that there is no documentary evidence to show the defendant (the 5th defendant herein) paid the rents.

ii) The learned counsel for the plaintif in OS.No.691/1996 tried to impress upon the court that the defendants 19 and 20 did not come into witness box to prove their respective versions. Hence their version cannot be taken into consideration. It is admitted by DW8 that there is no document to show

Rs.40,000/- was given to his wife in lieu of Pasupukumkuma by her parents, that the said amount was entrusted to his father and the said house was given to their daughter (19th defendant). It is rightly contended by him that though the defendants 5, 19 and 20 pleaded, the said property was given in the presence of elders, relatives and friends but none of them were examined.

32

Their version is vague. The names of the relatives and friends are not mentioned. Moreover as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 7th defendant (Plaintif in OS.No.691/1996) as per Section 122 of Transfer of

Property Act gif of immovable property must be made voluntarily and without consideration. Moreover Section 123 of Transfer of Property Act postulates that for the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be efected by a registered instrument and attested by atleast two attestros. But in this case there is no such registered document. As such the defendants in

OS.No.691/1996 failed to prove their version. At the same time it cannot be

ignored that except the vague suggestion, the plaintif (7th defendant in

OS.No.95/95) also failed to prove landlord and tenant relationship.

iii)The learned counsel urged that even in the absence of proof of landlord and tenant relationship, the 7th defendant is entitled to claim item

No.2 as the absolute owner thereof and in pursuance of the answer to the issues in OS.No.95/95 he is entitled to claim delivery of possession of the same as held by the apex court by order dated 17.6.2005 passed in

C.R.P.No.2962/2004. When once the case of the defendants 5, 19 and 20 that item No.2 was given to the 20th defendant is false and untenable under law, the contention of the 7th defendant is to be accepted. The 7th defendant got issued Ex.A1 quit notice, which is marked in OS.No.691/1996 terminating the tenancy to the correct address which the 5th defendant (in OS.No.95/1995) got it returned with false postal endorsement. Hence notice is valid and there is 33 no proof of arrears of rents from November, 1996. Hence the plaintif in

OS.No.691/96 is entitled for the relief. But I am unable to find force in the

contention of the learned counsel for the plaintif in OS.No.691/96 simply because the defendant failed to prove his case that he is residing in the property as a owner when the plaintif (7th defendant in OS.No.95/1995) himself pleaded even during life time of his father, the defendant (5th defendant in OS.No.95/1995) is in possession of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property with permission it is for the plaintif (7th defendant) to prove the landlord and tenant relationship to get decree in OS.No.691/1996, if the plaintif (7th defendant in OS.No.95/95) failed to prove the landlord and tenant relationship, his remedy for eviction is not by virtue of Ex.A1 quit notice but the remedy is otherwise.

iv)It may be noted that admittedly the 7th defendant (Plaintif in

OS.No.691/1996) is an income tax assesses. As could be seen from the

contents in Ex.B22 to B25 which are income tax assessment orders show his mother showed the income from the rents from her property in her income tax returns. Had really the 7th defendant let out the property to the 5th defendant as a tenant and he paid the rents till October, 1995, the income tax returns of the 7th defendant for the said period certainly discloses the same. But the 7th defendant/plaintif did not choose to file any such document to prove his contention that there is landlord and tenant relationship between himself and the 5th defendant. Therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn Under 34

Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act. When the landlord and tenant relationship is not proved, the validity of Ex.A1 notice (in OS.No.691/1996) does not arise.

Hence these issues are answered negatively.

28)ISSUE NOS. 2, 3, 4, ADDL. ISSUES 1 AND 2 AND ISSUE NO.3 IN

OS.No.691/96 and ISSUE NO.1 IN OS NO.466/99 and ADDL. ISSUES

Nos. 1 and 3:

2)Whether the item Nos. 2 to 5 of the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Late Venkata Krishna Rao?

3)Whether the Will, dated 7.3.1990 in favour of D7 is true, valid and binding on the plaintif?

4)Whether the item Nos. 4 and 5 are the self acquired properties of D1, D2, D5 to D7?

1)Whether the item No.6 of the plaint schedule property is also joint family property under control and possession of D6 or not?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled to claim any share in the item No.6 of the plaint schedule property or not?

3)Whether the will dated 7-3-90 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to the partition of item nos.1 and 2 of the schedule properties as prayed for?

2)Whether the 7th defendant is liable to render accounts as prayed for?

On 2-7-2003 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders in

IA.No.2210/2002 after impleading the 10th defendant, dated 2.7.2003.

1)Whether the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property in nature?

2)Whether D5 is no more under law?

3)Whether the plaintif is entitled to a share in the plaint schedule property?

On 29-3-2012 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders in

IA.No.2210/2002 after impleading the 10th defendant, dated 2.7.2003.

35

1)Whether the defendants 10 and 11 have got any right and entitled to claim any share in the plaint schedule properties?

2)Whether the defendants 10 and 11 are necessary and proper parties to the suit?

For the sake of brevity and convenience in order to avoid repetition as the evidence that is to be appreciated is common, these issues are answered together.

i)The plaintif as PW1 reiterated her version in respect of items 2 to 6 of plaint schedule properties also. Similarly the defendants 5 to 7 deposed on the lines of their respective version as DW2, DW3 and DW8. In Ex.A1 legal notice, dated 23.2.1993 originally she claimed share in respect of item Nos. 1 to 5 contending that they are the own properties of their father Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, improved by him but treated as joint.

Again she issued Ex.A11 modification notice to delete the said version and to substitute that the property left behind by Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna

Rao is not his property but own ancestral in nature and with ancestral nucleus he acquired and improved them. According to the 5th defendant item Nos. 2 and 3 are absolute properties of his father but treated as joint. Whereas the version of 3rd defendant is also that they are ancestral properties being purchased with ancestral nucleus. But according to the defendants 6 and 7 that they are the absolute properties of their father. Though the plaintif contended while issuing Ex.A11 modification notice as if the earlier version is typographical mistake describing the nature of the property cannot be treated as a typographical mistake but certainly it shows she improvised her case.

36 ii)The plaintif in order to substantiate her version that there is a ancestral property got marked Exs.A26 and A27 sale deeds (DW8 also filed copies of the same documents which are marked as Exs.B93 and 95). Ex.A26 is the sale deed, dated 4.1.1952 in favour of 3rd parties for an extent Ac.1.92 cents land at their native village at Dokiparru executed by Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao and the defendants 1 to 5 who are undivided sons.

iii)As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7 the recitals in the documents goes to show the property covered under the said property is purchased by executant by late Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao who is the father of the plaintif and the defendants 1 to 10 on 22.1.1948. Ex.A27 dated 22.3.1964 executed by late Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao in favour of the 3rd parties. The recitals in the said document clearly shows that part of the property covered under the document is acquired by the vendor. By virtue of patta, dated 18.4.1928 issued by

Deputy Thasilar, Pamarru and the remaining extent purchased by him on 20.4.1946 from one Adusumilli Nageswara Rao under registered sale deed.

Therefore, Exs.A26 and A27 do not probablises that there were any ancestral nucleus and the said documents in fact show the said property was absolute property of the father of the plaintif and the defendants 1 to 10. During her cross examination by the defendants 6 and 7 PW1 categorically stated her father was the original owner of the property covered under Exs.A26 and A27.

37 iv)Though the 3rd defendant contended the plaint schedule properties were purchased with ancestral nucleus and cross examined the plaintif, DW1 and DW2, he did not choose to come into witness box to depose on oath as to his version and make himself available for cross-examination. Therefore, the said version cannot be taken into consideration.

v)The 1st defendant is eldest son his evidence goes to show he was born in 1934. His evidence during the cross examination of PW1 goes to show in 1937 itself their father shifted to Vijayawada and worked as a clerk and in or about 1941 or 1942 he started business. The evidence of 5th defendant as

DW8 goes to show his father started business and subsequently he started joining the sons as partners. Though he stated in or about 1960 or 1961 partnership among defendants 1 and 2 and their father started but he categorically deposed that he does not know when they were made as partners. The 3rd defendant did not come into witness box. Therefore his version that the property is the ancestral property cannot be taken into consideration. In fact, DW1 during the cross examination of DW6 and DW7 categorically testified that their father is the absolute owner of the property covered under Exs.A26 and A27. As such there is no probable evidence to show there is any ancestral nucleus.

vi)The evidence of DW8 in the cross examination of the defendants 6 and 7 goes to show that his father has Ac.2.00 land in Dokiparru village. It may be the property covered under Ex.A26 and he categorically deposed that 38 the amount derived from the said land is not sufficient to meet the expenses of family hence his father used to borrow the amount. Therefore, his father started business.

vii)Though the defendants 6 and 7 deposed that in 1967 there was family settlement but it is not supported by any documentary evidence.

However, DW1, DW2, DW3 and DW8 also stated in 1960 or 1961 the 1st defendant started the business. In fact the evidence of DW1 and DW8 goes to show in or about 1984 one petrol bunk Radha Krishna Service station was exclusively given to the 1st defendant and the other sons relinquished their rights. DW2 also admitted the said fact. DW1 testified he divided from his father in 1961. The evidence elicited from the cross examination of PW1, DW1 to DW8 goes to show there are other businesses, partnership business by name N.V.K.R. Agencies, Manohar Krishna Service station which is now come to the 6th defendant and N.V.K.R. Advertising agency. All these are admittedly partnership firms. Exs.B66 to B69 are the income tax assessment orders for 1982-1983 to 1985-1986 of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. All the assessments order the status of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao is shown individually and he showed the property and income from N.V.K.R.

Agencies and the income from item Nos. 2 and 3 also in his individual capacity.

It is not the case of the plaintif, the defendants 3 or 5 that at any time Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao submitted his income tax returns in the capacity of kartha of joint family. He always paid income tax in his individual 39 capacity showing the income from partnership business as a partner itself shows that no property was treated as joint family property.

viii)There is no dispute that the sale deeds pertaining to item Nos. 2 and 3 stands in the name of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B15 is the original sale deed pertaining to item No.3 which is in his name and

Ex.B66 to B69 assessment orders further corroborated the same. In order to prove Ex.B47 will, dated 7.3.1990 said to be executed by their father for his properties DW4, DW5 and DW7 are examined.

ix)DW4 is the son of the scribe (who drafted) is examined to identify the signature of his father Allanki Venkata Ramana on Ex.B47 will. Ex.B49 is the death certificate of Allanki Venkata Ramana, dated 22.5.1991. During his cross examination the plaintif got marked Ex.A22 and Ex.A23. Ex.A22 is the signature of the scribe to Ex.B47 Will on the Xerox copy of deposition of the scribe as DW8 in another matter. Ex.A23 is the signature of the scribe on the

Xerox copy of the will in dispute. It is elicited from him that in Ex.A22 his father signed as Allanki Venkataramana Vralu and in Ex.A23 the signature is as

Allanki Venkata Ramana. But he categorically stated that he used to sign in both ways sometimes as Allanki Venkataramana and sometimes as Allanki

Venkata Ramana Vralu. Exs.A22 and A23 did not disclose any diference except on additional word “Vralu” under Ex.A22. As could be seen from the description of the deposition DW8 is an Advocate as such he has no reason to speak false hood had Ex.B47 does not contain the signature of his father.

40

x)DW5 Tejomurtula Narasimha Murthy is an identifying witness at the time of registration of Ex.B47 will. He deposed that on 7.3.1990 when

Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao presented his will for registration

before Sub Registrar Office, Gandhinagar he was present. He categorically

deposed that before the Sub Registrar Office, the testator Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao admitted that he executed the said will and put his signature. Then he signed before Sub Registrar Office, as identifying witness along with other witnesses. He further testified that the Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao put his signature as well as thumb impression on the said will before the Sub Registrar. During cross examination the counsel for the plaintif obtained his specimen handwriting and got it marked as Ex.A25. But it is no way helpful and material. Though his specimen writing Ex.A24 when compared with his signature on Ex.B47 there are some minor variations found between the two, but it cannot be ignored that Ex.B47 is dated 7.3.1999 and

Ex.B23 is obtained on 10.11.2003. Thus there is a gap of 13 years, it is well known that the signatures and handwritings keep on changing in the course of time. It is further elicited from him that one of the attestor to Ex.B47 is his typist P.M.Sarma. He further testified that his full name is Markendaya Sarma but he does not know his complete surname. As could be seen from him initially the signature of the 2nd attestor on the photocopy of the will is marked as Ex.A25 but immediately the preceeding officer made a note that the counsel for the plaintif pleaded the last page of the photo stat copy of will and 41 asked the witness to identify whether the particular signature written in pen on the said Photostat copy is that of P.M.Sarma, who is the typist of the witness, but as it was recently written with a pen on the Photostat copy of the will, the question is rejected. Therefore, Ex.A25 cannot be considered. Ex.B48 the death certificate of 2nd attestor Markendaya Sarma shown he died on 22.5.1991.

xi)DW7 Nandigam Nageswara Rao is examined as 1st attestor to

Ex.B47. His evidence goes to show that he got acquaintance with Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao through the 6th defendant. He deposed that one day prior to his execution of Ex.B47 will Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao wanted him to come to the Sub Registrar Office, Gandhinagar, to attest the will, which he intend to execute on the following day. Accordingly he went there they all met in the office of the document writer

A.Venkataramana which is situated opposite to Sub Registrar’s office. It is his evidence is that Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao gave instructions to the scribe Venkata Ramana to prepare the draft and after preparing the draft he wanted him to get it typed and when the scribe got it typed and read over, then Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao also read it and satisfied then put his signature on the will in their presence. Then he wanted himself and another who are already there to attest the same and both of them attested in his presence. The testator wanted the scribe to sign, then the scribe wanted 42 to put his signature. Thus the evidence of DW7 proves the execution of Will in accordance with Section 63 of Indian Succession Act.

xii)It is elicited from DW7 he worked as an accountant in a firm

Srivenkateswara Engineering Contract and he knows the family of Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao through the 6th defendant. His evidence goes to show that as an accountant he used to attend the office of Brahmaiah and company. He denied the suggestion given by the counsel for the 5th defendant that the 6th defendant brought a drafted document to him and asked him to sign in the document as an attestor and at his request he signed on it. Ofcourse during the cross examination of plaintif he stated that he does not know the total members of the family. But it is an admitted fact that the 6th defendant is an income tax practitioner and he was working in the

Brahmaiah and Company which is a chartered accountant firm. Therefore, there is no improbability in DW7 knowing the 6th defendant and the testator.

There is no reason for DW7 to speak falsehood. Though DW4, DW5 and DW7 are subjected to cross examination nothing worth was elicited to shatter their evidence. DW1, DW2 and DW6 are not benefices under the wills. In fact,

DW6 will get share in item Nos. 1 to 3 had her parents died intestate.

Therefore, there is no reason for her to support the wills which benefits the 7th defendant. Thus by unshattered evidence of DW7 who is an attestor to

Ex.B47, the defendants 6 and 7 proved that late Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao executed Ex.B47 will in a sound and disposing state of mind. The 43 evidence of PW1 goes to show her mother and father died all of sudden due to heart problem, prior to that they are hale and healthy. Therefore, it proves that

Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao executed the will in a sound and disposing state of mind. Under Ex.B47 will he bequeathed item Nos. 2 and 3 of the plaint schedule properties and also undivided 1/5th share in item No.6 to the 7th defendant. It is recited in the will that he is a freedom fighter and thus getting pension from the Government. He further recited that he did business of Khadi along with his sons, later on 31.9.1961 they divided the said business and got it assessed in income tax department, since then himself and his sons are doing their respective business and looking after their respective properties, therefore whatever the properties are acquired are his self acquired properties. He also recited as to his another son Syam Prasad leaving the house on 10.10.1970, that he performed the marriage of all the daughters by giving all lanchanams and all the sons and daughters are well settled but the 7th defendant is financially not much sound when compared to other sons and all other sons are financially well settled. Even the fact elicited from the defendants 1 and 2 and DW1 to DW3 goes to show by 7.3.1990, the defendants 1, 6, and 5 are already well settled in their respective business.

DW1 categorically deposed that during the cross examination in 1984 other partners i.e. other brothers relinquished their share in Radha Krishna service station to him. The evidence of DW2 goes to show he is an income tax practitioner from 1969. Apart from that he has also business and he has 44 petrol bunk, Manohar Krishna service station. It is also admitted fact that the defendants 2 and 5 have also got business. The evidence of DW3 goes to show that he completed his graduation in Engineering in 1988. Therefore by the date of execution of Ex.B47 it is only the 7th defendant who was not financially well settled when compared to other children. Therefore, there is no probability or suspicious circumstances in execution of Ex.B47 will. While answering the issue No.1 in OS.No.95/95 as already stated though PW1 denied that her father gave landed property and also financially helped for construction of the house, DW6 who is the 9th defendant categorically admitted that her father gave land and also financially supported for construction of house. This evidence of DW6 fortifies the recital in Ex.47 will.

xiii)In respect of his movable properties the testator categorically mentioned he has one diamond ring, rubi and 6 soverigns of Gold chain and he bequeathed the said jewelry to the 7th defendant. In respect of cash lying to his credit in his banks and LIC he made arrangement that out of the said cash

Rs.1,00,000/- shall be kept for philanthropy. He further mentioned that his son

Syam Prasad has share in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property and in respect of 1/6th share of Syam Prasad he made an arrangement that his share of amount shall be used for the education of poor children. The validity of leaving aside the said clause at this juncture I would like to refer this clause to prove the genuineness of the will. He not only made arrangement for the 7th defendant, but also made arrangement for philanthropy works this shows the 45 genuineness of the will. So far as the 3rd defendant is concerned he did not choose to cross examine DW4 to DW8. Therefore, so far the 3rd defendant is concerned their evidence is remained unchallenged.

xiv)The foregoing discussion proves Ex.B47 Will is executed by Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in a sound and disposing state of mind and by virtue of Ex.B47 Will, the 7th defendant because the absolute owner of item

Nos. 2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties.

xv)Exs.B185 and 183 are the mutation endorsements, dated 20.9.1993 in respect of item Nos. 2 and 3 respectively also shows Ex.B47 will is acted upon.

xvi)Now coming to items 4 and 5 (item Nos. 1 and 2 in OS.No.499/96) of the plaint schedule properties Exs.B88 and B89 (the certified copies of said sale deeds are marked through DW1 as Exs.B1 and B2 and his chief examination eschewed are the sale deeds pertaining to the same. The evidence of DW1 to DW3 and DW8 supported by Ex.B88 shows it is purchased in the name of the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 and Syam Prasad and Ex.B89 shows item No.5 is purchased by the defendants 1 to 6. It is an admitted fact that by the time of both the sale deeds, the 7th defendant was minor and represented by his father.

xvii)The learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7 contended that one of the purchasers by name Syam Prasad of item No.4 of the plaint 46 schedule property was not known from 1970. But Ex.B88 is dated 12.10.1971.

However he tried to impress upon the court that it is purchased by the purchasers in their individual capacity out of their share of income from partnership firm Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao & Sons. However the defendants have not filed any partnership deed pertaining to Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao & Sons. But the recitals in Ex.B88 shows that the consideration is paid by way of cheques in the name of Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and sons. As already stated though the partnership deed is not filed it shows that the property is purchased for the benefit of the purchasers mentioned in the document but not as joint family.

As already stated Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao always used to file his returns in his individual capacity but not as Kartha of any joint family.

Moreover as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7, the 14th defendant who is the tenant of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property pleaded that they took lease from the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 from 1.4.1997 and rent is being deposited in the account of Babu Rajendra Prasad and brothers. That shows the property is purchased for the benefit of individuals but not for the benefit of joint family.

xviii) DW1 is cross examined that in 1993 he gave paper publication along with the 3rd defendant that their parents died intestate and similarly he also gave report against his father under Exs.B96, 98 and 99 and the private complaint filed by the 1st defendant against his father in OS.No.261/1999 47

Under Ex.B97 alleging that he is misappropriating the amounts collected from item No.4 of the plaint schedule property. It is elicited from DW2 in 1982 they gave power of attorney to their father to collect the rents for item Nos. 4 and 5 of the plaint schedule property. Had the properties are purchased as joint properties, the question of giving power of attorney to Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao does not arise as he will be kartha of joint family.

Moreover, this shows that the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 are joint owners of item

No.5 of the plaint schedule property.

xix)Be it noted that for item No.4 of the plaint schedule property,

Syam Prasad’s is a joint owner. But his whereabouts are not known from 1970.

Hence he is presumed to be died by 1977 and 1978. Ex.B47 as discussed supra late Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao made an arrangement with regard to the share of Syam Prasad in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property. But it is to be noted that Syam Prasad presumed to be died by the end 1977 or 1978 where as the mother of the plaintif died on 18.10.1988.

Therefore, Syam Prasad is presumed to be predeceased his mother.

Admittedly, he left the house as a bachelor. Therefore, the mother is only class-I heir of Syam Prasad. As such the property bequeathed to Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in respect of item No.4 for the share of

Syam Prasad is not valid. However under Ex.B7 the mother has not made any arrangement in respect of the share of Syam Prasad in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property, her 1/6th share will be devolved on the plaintif, the 48 defendants 1 to 10 and her husband Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao that means the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10 will get 1/72th share each.

The income of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property shall be given to the other joint owners i.e. the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 for maintenance of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property and to help the education of poor children.

Thus the defendants 1, 2, 5 and 10 each will get 1/6th share + 1/72th share i.e.

13/72th in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property. In item No.5 of the plaint schedule property, the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 will have 1/5th share.

xx)Coming to item No.6 of the plaint schedule property Exs.A30 and

A31 shows it is purchased by Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao i.e.

father of the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10 and one Subrahmanya Prasad,

S/o. the 2nd defendant. Being minors the 7th defendant is represented by his father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and Subrahmanya Prasad is represented by 2nd defendant. As already discussed supra, the properties are purchased for the benefit of individuals but not as joint. Therefore in item

No.6 also the plaintif as well as the defendants 2, 4, 8 to 10 will not have any share. As per Ex.B47 the share of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao devolved on DW3 i.e. 7th defendant. The 7th defendant deposed that himself,

Subrahmanya Prasad i.e. son of the 2nd defendant and 6th defendant gave the property to the 4th defendant and got marked the certified copies of gift deed, dated, 26.7.1993 which is marked as Ex.B188. Therefore, the learned counsel for the plaintif, the defendants 6 and 7 contends that the 5th defendant has 49 1/5th share in item No.6 of the plaint schedule property and remaining 4/5th share belongs to the 4th defendant. It may be noted that item No.6 is added subsequently and subsequent to adding of item No.6, the defendants 6 and 7 filed their additional written statement. But in the additional written statement they did not mention about Ex.B188. Therefore, whatever it be one of the joint owner by name Subrahmanya Prasad is not party to the suit. As stated the plaintif has no share in the said property. Under those circumstances I do not want to dwell into Ex.B188 gift deed.

29. ISSUE NO.2 IN OS.No.466/1999:

1)Whether the 2nd defendant is liable to render accounts as prayed for.

i)The plaintif who is his joint owner of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property extensively let in evidence to show as per the orders in interlocutory application filed by the 14th defendant in OS.No.1358/99, the keys pertaining to ground floor of item No.4 (item No.1 in OS.No.466/99) handed over to the 6th defendant. However DW8 (2nd defendant in this suit) admitted that he let out to Andhra Bank with consent of other brothers. He further testified that later he himself let out the same in 1997 or 1998 to the present tenant and collecting the rents. Therefore, he is liable to account the amounts collected by him to all the joint owners of item No.4 and 5 of the plaint schedule properties.

ii)In view of my forgoing discussion, this issue is answered affirmatively.

30)ISSUE No.5 in OS.No.95/1995:

50

5)Whether the 17th defendant is a necessary party to this suit?

i)Admittedly the 17th defendant is the tenant of item No.5 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/1995 (which is item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/99). As could be seen from the record the rents are credited by the 17th defendant in bank. It is pleaded by them due to disputes between the family members of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna

Rao, the defendant bank deposited the rents in the account of Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. In fact during the pendency of suit, the 17th defendant filed petition in IA.No.947/2006 in OS.No.466/99 they want to vacate the premises by the first of January, 2007. At the instance of the 3rd defendant. In IA.No.1/2007 an advocate receiver is appointed on 7.6.2007 to manage the item No.5 of the plaint schedule property and to take possession from the 17th defendant. In IA.No.947/2006 in OS.No.499/96 the court passed the orders, dated 20.6.2007 directing the 7th defendant to handover the keys to the receiver and receiver took possession of the item No.5 of the plaint schedule property from the 17th defendant all for tenders to lease out the same. But at the time the petitioner delivered the plaint schedule property, he found the building is exclusively damaged and directed the 17th defendant’s officials to get the damaged estimated, but they did not get the damages estimated under the back ground of these facts, the 17th defendant being a tenant and in possession of one of the item of plaint schedule property he is a proper and necessary party.

51 ii)Hence this issue is answered.

31)ISSUE NO.6 IN OS.No.95/95:

i)Whether the suit is property valued or not?

ii)Whether the plaintif is entitled to the partition of the property as prayed for?

i)In the light forgoing discussion and the answers to issue Nos. 1 to 4 and additional issue No.1, dated 8.6.2005 and additional issue Nos. 1 and 2,

dated 11.12.2006 I found that the plaintif is not entitled to any share in items

No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 of the plaint schedule properties. However, she is entitled to 1/72th share in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property.

31.ISSUE NOs.7 and 8 in OS.No.95/1995:-

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled for the mesne profits as claimed?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled for the future profits?

i)In view of the answers to issue No.6 the plaintif is entitled for mesne profits for her 1/72th share. However, mesne profits has to be ascertained by way of separate application Under Order XX Rule 12 C.P.C. in

Saint Mary’s Educational Society, Represented by its Secretary and

others Vs. Dr. Qutubuddin Ahmed and others, reported in 2007 (3)

ALT 214. Our Hon’ble High Courtheld that

the mesne profits to be ascertained on an

application made under the mandatory provision of Rule 12 of Order 20 of C.P.C., fixation of mesne profits straightaway by courts below without following the said mandatory procedure 52 is not legal. The damages as to be ascertained by way of separate application.

ii)Accordingly she is entitled for mesne profits and future profits till delivery of her share.

14.ADDL. ISSUE NO.3, DATED 13.12.2006 IN OS.NO.95/95:

Whether the suit is properly valued or not?

i)The contention of the defendant is that except in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property the plaintif is not entitled for any other items as they are not joint family properties the plaintif is not in possession of item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the plaint schedule properties but the plaintif paid only fixed court fee for the item Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6. But she ought to have paid the court fee Under Section 34 of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act. But it may be noted that none of the defendants has not specifically pleaded exactly when the plaintif was ousted. Moreover, the plaintif is having share in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property.

ii)Hence this issue is answered in favour of the plaintif.

32.ISSUE NO.9 IN OS 95/95, ISSUE NO.6 IN OS.NO.691/1996 AND

ISSUE NO.3 IN OS.NO.466/1999:

To what relief?

In view of the answer to issues discussed supra, the suit in

OS.No.466/1999 is preliminarily decreed and the suit is partly decreed

53 preliminarily in OS.No.95/95 allotting 1/72th share each to the plaintif, defendants 3, 4, 8 to 10 and 13/72th share each to the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property (item No.1 of plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/99) and the remaining 1/72th share belongs to the deceased Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in the 1/6th share of

Nimmagadda Syam Prasad shall be utilized for the purpose as per his bequeath under Ex.B47, dated 7.3.1990.

The plaintif is also entitled for mesne profits by way of separate application for her 1/72th share in the said item No.4 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/95 (item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in

OS.No.466/99).

Item No.5 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/95 (item No.2 of plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/99) shall be partitioned among the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 (the plaintif and the defendants 1 to 4 in

OS.No.466/99) and each of them shall get 1/5th share in the said item.

The rest of the claim of the plaintif in OS.No.95/95 is dismissed.

The suit in OS.No.691/1996 is also dismissed.

In the circumstances the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 7th day of March, 2017

VII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN O.S.NO.95/95

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PLAINTIFF: PW1 : Adusumilli Chinnamma PW2: Nimmagadda Sivaramakrishna Prasad

DEFENDANT: DW1: Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad 54

DW2: Nimmagadda Lalitha Prasad DW3: Nimmagadda Bhanu Prasad DW4: A.V.Ramana DW5: Tejomurthula Narasimha Murthy DW6: Smt.Potluri Lakshmikantha DW7: Nadigam Nageswara Rao DW8: Nimmagadda Rama Prasad

Documents marked on behalf of Plaintif

Ex.A1: Office copy of notice dated 23.02.1993 Ex.A2: Returned cover of D1. Ex.A3: Acknowledgement of D2. Ex.A4: Acknowledgement of D3 Ex.A5: Acknowledgement of D5 Ex.A6: Acknowledgement of D6 Ex.A7: Acknowledgement of D7 Ex.A8: Acknowledgement of D8 Ex.A9: Acknowledgement of D9 Ex.A10: Acknowledgement of D10 Ex.A11: Office copy of notice dated 06.03.1993 Ex.A12: Returned notice of D1 Ex.A13: Acknowledgement of D2 Ex.A14: Acknowledgement of D3 Ex.A15: Acknowledgement of D6 Ex.A16: Acknowledgement of D7 Ex.A17: Acknowledgement of D8 Ex.A18: Acknowledgement of D9 Ex.A19: Acknowledgement of D10 Ex.A20: Reply for Ex.A1 dated 16.03.1993 Ex.A21: Acknowledgement of D4 Ex.A22: Signature of Allanka Venkata Ramana of deposition in C.A. No.6673/2003 dated 14.10.2000(marked through DW4) Ex.A23: Signature of Allanka Venkata Ramana on the last page of Will (marked through DW4) Ex.A24: Specimen hand writing of T. Narasimha Murthy dated 10.11.2003 (marked through DW5) Ex.A25: Signature of P.M.Sarma as 2nd attestor in photostat copy of will (marked through DW5 on 10.11.2003) Ex.A26: Registration extract of sale deed dated 05.01.1952 executed by N.V.Krishna Rao and his minor sons for the property relating to Dokiparru village. Ex.A27: Registration extract of sale deed dated 23.03.1962 executed by N.V.Krishna Rao at Dokiparru. Ex.A28: Registration extract of sale deed dated 06.04.1965 executed by Venkata Rama Monoharam. Ex.A29: Registration extract of sale deed dated 06.04.1965 executed by Venkata Rama Manoharam. Ex.A30: Sale Deed executed by Kommineni Venkataratnam in favour of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and others(registration extract) 55

dated 07.07.1981.

Ex.A31: Sale deed executed by Nanapaneni Venkateswara Rao in favour of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and Others (registration extract)

dated 07.07.1981.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defendants

Ex.B1: Registration Extract of the Registered sale deed executed by Palaparti Purnanandam dated 12.10.1971. Ex.B2: Registration Extract of the Registered sale deed executed by Kasinaduni Sambasiva Rao dated 27.01.1978. Ex.B3: Market value certificate issued by S.R.O. VJA., for item No.5 dated 30.04.1999. Ex.B4: Marked value certificate issued by S.R.O., VJA., for item No.4 dated 29.04.1999. Ex.B5: Estimate issued by the Licensed Surveyor estimating the value of G.F.,F.F. and S.F. of item No.4 dated 25.08.1999. Ex.B6: Estimate issued by the Licensed Surveyor estimating the value of G.F., F.F. and S.F. of item no.5 dated 25.08.1999. Ex.B7: Will executed by Nimmagadda Venkatravamma dated 10.12.1986. Ex.B8: Registration Sale Deed executed by Smt. G.Savithri dated 22.09.1989. Ex.B9: Death Certificate of Smt. N.Venkatravamma dated 03.11.1989. Ex.B10: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B11: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B12: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B13: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B14: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B15: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B16: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B17: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B18: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B19: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B20: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B21: Income Tax Assessment Order of Smt. N.Venkatravamma for the Assessment year 1986-87 dated 14.10.1987. Ex.B22: Income Tax Assessment Order of Smt. N.Venkatravamma for the Assessment year 1987-88. Ex.B23: Income Tax Assessment Order of Smt. N.Venkatravamma for the assessment year 1988-89 dated 11.03.1991. Ex.B24: Income Tax Refund Order for the Assessment year 1989-90 of Smt. N.Venkatravamma dated 14.03.1991. Ex.B25: Income Tax Refund Order for the Assessment year 1990-91 of Smt. N.Venkatravamma dated 14.03.1991. Ex.B26: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B27: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B28: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma.

56

Ex.B29: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B30: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B31: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B32: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B33: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B34: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B35: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B36: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B37: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B38: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B39: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B40: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B41: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B42: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B43: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B44: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B45: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B46: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B47: Registered Will executed by Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 57 07.03.1990. Ex.B48: Death Certificate of P.Markandeya Sarma dated 25.07.2003. Ex.B49: Death Certificate of Allanki Venkataramana dated 08.02.2003. Ex.B50: Registered Sale Deed executed by Smt. Panuganti Tulasamma in favour of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 21.04.1964. Ex.B51: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B52: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B53: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B54: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B55: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B56: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B57: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B58: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B59: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B60: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B61: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B62: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B63: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B64: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B65: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B66: Income tax Assessment Order for the Assessment year 1982-1983 of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 01.06.1985. Ex.B67: Income Tax Assessment Order for the Assessment year 1983-84 of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 05.09.1986.

58

Ex.B68: Income Tax Assessment Order for the Assessment year 1984-85 of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 05.09.1986. Ex.B69: Income Tax Assessment Order for the Assessment year 1985-86 of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 05.09.1986. Ex.B70: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B71: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B72: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B73: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B74: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B75: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B76: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B77: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B78: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B79: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B80: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B81: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B82: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years 59 commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B83: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B84: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B85: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B86: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B87: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B88: Original of Ex.B1 Registered Sale Deed executed by Palaparti Purnanandam dated 12.10.1971. Ex.B89: Original of Ex.B2 Registered Sale Deed executed by Kasinaduni Sambasiva Rao dated 27.01.1978. Ex.B90: Certified copy of Plaint in O.S.No.1358/199 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil

Judge Court, Vijayawada. dated 16.06.1999.

Ex.B91: Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No.1358/1999 dated 12.07.2000. Ex.B92: Certified copy of Decree in O.S.No.1358/1999 on the file of I Addl. Junior

Civil Judge's Court, Vijayawada dated 12.07.2000.

Ex.B93: Registered Sale Deed executed by Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao

dated 04.01.1952.

Ex.B94: Registered Sale Deed executed by Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatrama Manoharam and Smt. Yerneni Lakshmi Narsamma dated 05.04.1965. Ex.B95: Registered Sale Deed executed by Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatrama Manoharam dated 05.04.1965. Ex.B96: News Paper publication given by D1 and D3 against D7 dated 04.09.1993. Ex.B97: Private Complaint filed by D1 against Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in C.C. No.276/1991 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada date 13.11.1990. Ex.B98: News paper publication got issued by D1 dated 28.05.1989. Ex.B99: News paper publication got issued by D1 Ex.B100: Letter written by D1, D2, D5, D6 and D7 dated 13.06.1995. Ex.B101: Distribution of responsibilities in the administration of properties of N.Babu Rajendra Prasad and Brothers among the co-owners enclosed to Ex.B100

dated 13.06.1995.

Ex.B102: Letter addressed by D1 to the Assistant General / Zonal Manager, Bank of 60

Baroda, Madras dated 06.06.1995. Ex.B103: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B104: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B105: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B106: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B107: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B108: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B109: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B110: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B111: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B112: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B113: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B114: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B115: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B116: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item 61

Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B117: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B118: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B119: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B120: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B121: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B122: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B123: Letter from D1 Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad to D14 Andhra Bank

dated 19.07.1995.

Ex.B124: Letter from D5 N.Rama Prasad to D14 Andhra Bank dated 21.05.1994. Ex.B125: Letter from D5 N.Rama Prasad to D14 Andhra Bank dated 08.07.1994. Ex.B126: legal notice got issued by D5 N. Rama Prasad to D14 Andhra Bank dated 15.08.1994. Ex.B127: Postal acknowledgement for Ex.B126 dated 17.08.1994. Ex.B128 Reply legal notice got issued by D14 Andhra Bank to Ex.B126 dated 27.08.1994. Ex.B129: Letter from N.Babu Rajendra Prasad and Brothers to D14 Andhra Bank

dated 25.10.1993.

Ex.B130: Letter addressed by D1 N.Babu Rajendra Prasad on behalf of N.Babu Rajendra Prasad & Brothers to D14 Andhra Bank. Ex.B131: Letter from D1 Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad on behalf of N.Babu Rajendra Prasad and Brothers to D14 Andhra Bank dated 01.06.1995. Ex.B132: Settlement Agreement dated 01.11.1982. Ex.B133: Death Certificate of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 03.10.1992, Ex.B134: Transfer of Ration Card in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad dated 19.05.1994. Ex.B135: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 62 to 1413. Ex.B136: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1392 to 1413. Ex.B137: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1393 to 1413. Ex.B138: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1394 to 1413. Ex.B139: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1395 to 1413. Ex.B140: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1396 to 1413. Ex.B141: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1397 to 1413. Ex.B142: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1398 to 1413. Ex.B143: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1399 to 1413. Ex.B144: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B145: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B146: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B147: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B148: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B149: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B150: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B151: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B152: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B153: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413.

63

Ex.B154: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B155: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B156: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B157: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B158: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B159: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B160: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B161: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B162: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B163: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B164: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B165: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B166: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B167: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B168: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B169: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B170: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B171: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413.

64

Ex.B172: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B173: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B174: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B175: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B176: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B177: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B178: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B179: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B180: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B181: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B182: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B183: Mutation endorsement issued by V.M.C. In respect of Assessment No.26414 dated 20.09.1993. Ex.B184: Mutation endorsement issued by V.M.C. In respect of Assessment No.26423 dated 27.09.1993. Ex.B185: Mutation Endorsement issued by V.M.C. In respect of Assessment No.26416 dated 06.10.1993. Ex.B186: Letter from Bill Collector, Ward No.28/2, to the Commissioner V.M.C.

Dated 07.10.1993.

Ex.B187: Pass Book of N.Venkatravamma for her S.B. Account No.2330 in Indian Bank, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada. Ex.B188: Registration extract of gift deed executed by D6 and D7 and Nimmagadda Subramanya Prasad in favour of Defendant No.4 along with typed copy. Ex.B189: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B190: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B191: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, 65

Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B192: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B193: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B194: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B195: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B196: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN O.S.NO.691/1996

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT: PW1: Bhanu PrasadNil Documents marked on behalf of Plaintif Ex.A1: 25.08.2004: Office copy of legal notice dated 09.08.1996. Ex.A2: 25.08.2004: Return R.P. cover Ex.A3: 25.08.2004: Sale deed dated 27.02.1965. Ex.A4: 25.08.2004: Certified copy of will dated 07.03.1990. Ex.A5: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 02.12.1983. Ex.A6: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 17.02.1984. Ex.A7: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 25.02.1985. Ex.A8: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 04.11.1985. Ex.A9: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 23.01.1986. Ex.A10: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 16.07.1986. Ex.A11:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 10.03.1987. Ex.A12:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 22.08.1987. Ex.A13:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 12.01.1988. Ex.A14:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 09.09.1988. Ex.A15:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 31.03.1989. Ex.A16:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 15.07.1989. Ex.A17:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 15.02.1990. Ex.A18:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 27.08.1990. Ex.A19:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 12.03.1991. Ex.A20:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 31.08.1991. Ex.A21:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 25.02.1992. Ex.A22: 25.08.2004: Endorsement certificate given by Municipal Corporation

dated 20.09.1993.

Ex.A23:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 25.06.1994. Ex.A24:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 19.09.1994. Ex.A25:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 29.03.1995. Ex.A26:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 01.11.1995. Ex.A27:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 14.05.1996. Ex.A28:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 30.09.1996. Ex.A29:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 26.02.1997. Ex.A30:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 15.11.1997. Ex.A31:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 06.11.1997. Ex.A32:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 01.02.1999.

66

Ex.A33:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 11.09.1999. Ex.A34:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 27.03.2000. Ex.A35:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 02.09.2000. Ex.A36:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 23.02.2001. Ex.A37:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 06.08.2001. Ex.A38:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 18.01.2002. Ex.A39:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 16.08.2002. Ex.A40:25.08.2004: Certificate of Architect dated 29.12.2003.

Documents marked on behalf of Defendant Nil

VII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: SMT. M.MADHURI,

VII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA.

FAC V ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,VIJAYAWADA.

TUESDAY THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017

O.S.NO.95/1995 , OS 691/1996 AND OS 466/1999

OS.NO.95/1995

Between:

Smt.Adusumilli Chinnamma… Plaintif

A N D

1) Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad

2) Nimmagadda Dhana Ratna Prasad

3) Nimmagadda Sivarama Prasad

4) Nimmagadda Udaya Bhaskara Durga Bhavani Prasad

5) Nimmagadda Rama Prasad

6) Nimmagadda Lalitha Prasad

7) Nimmagadda Bhanu Prasad

8) Smt.Kosaraju Durga Bhavani

9) Smt.Potluri Lakshmi Kantha

10) Smt.Potluri Jayalakshmi

11) Approach Computers, Rep. by its Managing Partner, R.Kumar Raja.

12) Potluri Krishna Murthy

13) C.R.Ravichandran

14) Andhra Bank, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Eluru Road.

15) A.P. Book Distributors.

16) The Hindu Paper Office

17) Bank of Baroda, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Vijayawada.

18) Nimmagadda Bala Bhaskara Krishna Prasad (18th defendant is added as per the orders Of High Court of Judicature, A.P., Hyderabad In CRP.No.4625/2001)

19) Nimmagadda Venkata Ramani (19th defendant is added as per the orders Of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.1542/2004,

Dated 15.3.2005)

20) Nimmagadda Syamala Devi (20th defendant is added as per the orders Of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.163/2005,

Dated 15.3.2005) … Defendants

OS.NO.691/1996

Between:

2

Nimmagadda Bhanu Prasad… Plaintif

A N D

1) Nimmagadda Ram Prasad

2) V.V.Ramani

3) N.Syamala Devi

4) Nimmagadda Siva Ram Prasad (4th defendant is added as per the orders of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.253/2007,

Dated 21.1.2008) … Defendants

OS.NO.466/1999

Between:

Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad… Plaintif

A N D

1) Nimmagadda Dhana Ratna Prasad

2) Nimmagadda Ram Prasad

3) Nimmagadda Lalitha Prasad

4) Nimmagadda Bhanu Prasad

5) Nimmagadda Shyam Prasad 6)Andhra Pradesh Book Distributors.

7) Swrnandhra Telugu Daily

8) Andhra Bank, Eluru Road.

9) Bank of Baroda, Musuem Road Branch, Vijayawada.

10) Smt.Adusumilli Chinnamma (10th defendant is added as per the orders of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.2210 /2003,

Dated 26.6.2003)

11) Nimmagadda Sivarama Prasad (11th defendant is added as per the orders Of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.254 /2007,

Dated 21.1.2008) … Defendants

These suits are coming on this day before me on in the presence of Sri M.Lakshman, Advocate for the plaintif, Sri S.Rajendra Prasad, Advocate for the 1st defendant, the defendants 3 and 5 are in person; Sri V.Veerasalingam, Advocate for the defendants 6 and 7; Sri K.Laxmi Pathi, Advocate for the 14th defendant; Sri D.T.Vyas, Advocate for the 17th defendant; Sri Ch.Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the 19th defendant, of Sri CH.G.R., Advocate for the 20TH defendant and the defendants 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18 remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

The suit in OS.No.95/1995 is comprehensive suit originally filed for partition of item Nos. 1 to 5 of the plaint schedule properties against the 3 defendants 1 to 17. Subsequently as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court under various IAs, the defendants 18 to 20 were added and item No.6 is also added to the plaint schedule properties.

2)The suit in OS.No.691/1996 is filed by the plaintif who is the 7th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 originally against the sole defendant i.e. the 5th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 for his eviction of the plaint schedule property (which is item No.2 of plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/1995) subsequently as per the orders in diferent IAs defendants 2 to 4 were added.

3)The suit in OS.No.466/1999 is filed for partition of the plaint schedule properties by the plaintif, who is the 1st defendant in OS.No.95/1995 originally against the defendants 1 to 9 who are some of the defendants in

OS.No.95/1995 and one Syam Prasad. Subsequently the defendants 10 and

11 are added as per the orders in diferent IAs.

4)For better appreciation I would like to refer the parties by way of table:

S.N OS.NO.95/19 OS.NO.691/19 OS.NO.466/19

Name of the Party

o 95 96 99

Smt.Adsumilli 1Plaintif -10th defendant Chinnamma NimmagaddaBabu 21st defendant-Plaintif Rajendra Prasad NimmagaddaDhana 32nd defendant - 1st defendant Ratna Prasad Nimmagadda 4 3rd defendant 4th defendant - Sivarama Prasad NimmagaddaUdaya 5BhaskaraDurga 4th defendant - - Bhavani Prasad Nimmagadda Rama 6 5th defendant1st defendant 2nd defendant Prasad Nimmagadda Lalitha 7 6th defendant - 3rd defendant Prasad NimmagaddaBhanu 8 7th defendantPlaintif 4th defendant Prasad 9Smt.Kosaraju Durga 8th defendant - - 4

Bhavani Smt.PotluriLakshmi 10 9th defendant - - Kantha 10th 11Smt.Potluri Jayalakshmi - - defendant Approach Computers, 11th 12Rep. by its Managing - - defendant Partner: R.Kumar Raja. 12th defendant 13Potluri Krishna Murthy - - 13th 14 C.R.Ravichandran - - defendant Andhra Bank, Rep. by 14th 15its Branch Manager, - 8th defendant defendant Manager, Eluru Road. 15th defendant 16A.P. Book Distributors. - 6th defendant 16th 17The Hindu Paper Office - - defendant Bank of Baroda, Rep. 18by its Branch Manager,17th defendant - 9th defendant Vijayawada NimmagaddaBala BhaskaraKrishna Prasad (18th defendant is added as per the18th 19 - - orders Hon’ble Highdefendant Court of Judicature, A.P. Hyderabadin

CRP.No.4625/2001)

Nimmagadda Venkata Ramani (19th defendant 20is added as per the19th defendant -- orders in IA.No.1542 / 2004 Nimmagadda Syamala Devi (20th defendant is added as per the 2120th defendant3rd defendant - ordersin

IA.No.163/2005, dated

15.3.2005. VallurupalliVenkata 22-2nd defendant- Ramani NimmagaddaSyam 23--5th defendant Prasad SwarnandhraTelugu 24--7th defendant Daily

5)Though there are some diferences with regard to the boundaries from item No.2 of plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/1995 and in OS.No.466/1999 it is claimed by all parties item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in 5

OS.No.95/1995 is the plaint schedule property in OS.No.691/1996. It is an

admitted fact that item Nos.4 and 5 of plaint schedule properties in

OS.No.95/1995 are item No.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties in

OS.No.466/1999.

6)As per the orders in IA.No.1263/2001, dated 22.7.2002 in

OS.No.95/1995, OS.No.466/1999 is clubbed, to record common evidence in

OS.No.95/1995. Subsequently as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in

CRP.No.5820/2005, 1071/2006 and 1072/2006 all the three suits i.e.

OS.No.95/1995, OS.No.691/1996 and OS.No.466/1999 are clubbed and

common evidence is recorded in comprehensive of suit in OS.No.95/1995.

7)The admitted facts of the case are the defendants 1 to 7 and one

Nimmagadda Syam Prasad who is the 5th defendant in OS.No.466/1999 are the sons and the plaintif, defendants 8 to 10 are the daughters of one Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and Venkataravamma. The 18th defendant is the son of the 3rd defendant, 20th defendant is wife and 19th defendant is the daughter of the 5th defendant in OS.No.95/1995.

8)The case of the plaintif (10th defendant in OS.No.466/09) is their mother died intestate on 3.10.1989 and she was the absolute owner of item No.1 of plaint schedule property having acquired the same with her own Sridhana property. Their father also died on 3.10.1992 and he was the owner of the item Nos. 2 to 6 of schedule property besides cash and other movables. After the death of their mother Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, her entire estate 6 devolved upon her husband i.e. their father, herself and the defendants 1 to 10 Under Hindu Succession Act and they got 1/12th share each and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the estate left by their mother

Venkataravamma. During her life time she let out the entire item No.1 of the plaint schedule building and she used to get the rent @Rs.6000/- per month.

From 3.10.1989 the 7th defendant has been collecting the rents. As on the date of filing of the suit the 7th defendant is liable to pay 1/12th share similarly he has also amounts S.B. Account in Syndicate Bank, Labbipet Branch,

Vijayawada in which also she has 1/12th share. She further pleaded items

Nos.2 to 6 are acquired by his father with ancestral nucleus and improved by him. Originally their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao got 8 sons i.e. defendants 1 to 7 and Syam Prasad and he left the house in the year 1970 without any information to his family till today or seen by him any of his kith and kin. As such she got 1/9th share and joint possession in the plaint schedule property. Therefore as he presumed to be died and his share devolved on their mother Venkataravamma. On the death of Venkatravamma, the share of her son Syam Prasad devolved upon her husband Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, herself and the defendant 1 to 10. As Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao has also got 1/108th share in the share of

Syamprasad and as such his share enlarged to 1/9th +10/108 herself and the defendants 1 to 10 got equal shares in the estate of Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao. Therefore, i.e. 1188/108 share. He further pleaded that 7 the amount of Rs.13,00,000/- is rent deposited by the Bank of Baroda (17th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 and 9th defendant in OS.No.466/99) and apart from the plaint schedule properties there are several joint family business concerns which are Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao News Agency,

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao & sons, Vijayawada, N.V.K.R. Advertising,

Vijayawada; Radha Krishna Service Station at Tadepalli, N.B.R. Prasad &

Brothers, Vijayawada and Monohar Krishna Service Station. The share of Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao devolved upon his daughters and sons equally. Though she demanded the defendants 1 to 10 to cooperate with her for partition and separate possession of the same they did not cooperate with her. On the other hand, the 7th defendant got issued a publication in Eenadu daily, dated 23.3.1993 to the efect that Venkatravamma has executed a will, on 10.12.1986 bequeathing her entire property in his favour which is not correct and it must be fabricated, concocted and forged one. Therefore, he got issued a notice, dated 23.2.1993 demanding the defendants 1 to10 to partition the same. Having received the same they did not issue any reply and kept quit. Again on 6.3.1993 he issued another notice as there are some typographical errors in the earlier notice, except the 1st defendant others acknowledged the same. The 7th defendant alone got issued reply notice on 17.3.1993 with all false allegations. The 11th defendant is tenant to item No.1, defendants 12 and 13 are the tenants of ground floor of item No.3, the 8 defendants 14 to 16 are the tenants in item No.4 and the 17th defendant is tenant in item No.4. Hence he filed the suit.

9)The version of the 1st defendant (plaintif in OS.No.466/99) is himself and the defendants 2,5,6,7 and Syamprasad purchased the item No.4 of the plaint schedule property (item No.1 in OS.No.466/99) under a registered sale deed,

dated 12.10.1971 for a valid consideration of Rs.55,000/- from one Palaparthi

Poornandam and others. Similarly himself and the defendants 2, 5, 6 and 7 (defendants 1 to 4 in OS.No.466/99) purchased the item No.5 (item No.2 in

OS.No.466/99) of the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed,

dated 31.1.1978 from Kasinadhuni Sambasivarao. Therefore, they are the joint

owners of the said property, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and they let out the item No.4 to the 14th defendant (8th defendant in

OS.No.466/99) and item No.5 is let out to the 17th defendant (9th defendant in

OS.No.466/99) The 5th defendant (2nd defendant in OS.No.466/99) has been

looking after the afairs of the building even without their consent since 6 years prior to the filing of the suit and also he let out the same without the consent of the other joint owners to some part of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property (Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/99) to the 15th defendant (6th defendant in OS.No.466.99) and 7th defendant in

OS.No.466/1999 and collecting the rents. He is also not rendering proper

accounts for the amounts collected by him and has been misappropriating the same for his own benefit. While so, in January, 1997 the 14th defendant (8th 9 defendant in OS.No.466/1999) vacated the premised in their occupation and kept the same under the lock. But they did not hand over the keys of the tenanted building. Subsequently they filed OS. No.1358/99 on the file of I

Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada for deposit of the keys. They used to credit the rents upto 31.12.1996 in the joint account of himself and other brothers i.e. the defendants 2, 5, 6 and 7 (defendants 2 to 4 in OS.No.466/99).

Similarly the 17th defendant (9th defendant in OS.No.466/1999) is in occupation of item No.5 of the plaint schedule property (item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/1999) since 1.4.1980 taking undue advantage of the situation did not even enhanced the rent from 7900/- as agreed by him. He has been depositing the rent to the credit of himself and other joint owners bearing Account No.3320 in 17thdefendant Bank (9th defendant in

OS.No.466/1999) and the amount is lying in the said account. Therefore he is

entitled for 1/6th share in the agreed rents in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property (item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/1999) as well

as 1/5th share in item No.5 of the plaint schedule property (item No.1 of the

plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/1999).

10)The 2nd defendant remained exparte.

11)The 3rd defendant (4th defendant in OS.No.699/96) filed written statement contending that their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao is native of Dokiparru village and from there he migrated to Machilipatnam and finally migrated to Vijayawada in or about 1937. Subsequently he started business with the income derived from the ancestral properties at Dokiparru 10 village of Krishna District. He being kartha of the joint family used to look after the same for and on behalf of the joint family. Thereafter, he disposed of the ancestral properties and with the said income he developed the business, with the income from the ancestral nucleus he developed the financial position of the family and acquired the properties i.e. item No.1 to 6 of the plaint schedule properties. He further pleaded that item No.1 of plaint schedule property is purchased by his father in the name of his wife Venkatravamma. In fact the name of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao i.e. mother of the plaintif and defendants 1 to 10 is Venkatrama Manoharam but not

Venkataravamma. It is nothing but Benami transaction. Therefore, though the said property was purchased in her name, the afairs of the said property were looked after by their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao being

Kartha of the joint family. Being coparceners, the defendants 1, 2, 4 to 7 and

Syam Prasad and their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao got each 1/9th share in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. However, the item

No.4 is purchased in the name of the defendants 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and Syam Prasad whose where abouts’ are not known even by the date of purchase of the said property and the item No.5 was purchased in the name of the defendants 1, 2,5, 6 and 7 by their father. Item No.6 of the plaint schedule property is purchased in the name of their father and in the names of the defendants 5, 6, 7 and Nimmaggadda Subrahmanya Prasad i.e. son of the 2nd defendant.

Hence item Nos.4 and 5 (item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property in 11

OS.No.466/99) also are joint family properties and he is being the coparcener

is having 1/9th share in the said two items also.

12)The 4th defendant remained exparte.

13)For the sake of convenience and understanding the version of the 7th defendant is mentioned before the version of the 5th defendant.

The written statement filed by 7th defendant (Plaintif in OS.No.691/1996 and the 4th defendant in OS.No.466/99) is adopted by the 6th defendant (3rd defendant in OS.No.466/99). He pleaded that their mother Venkatravamma was the absolute owner of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and she enjoyed the same, during her life time. On 10.12.1986 she executed a will in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing the said property and some other properties in his favour. The said will is within the knowledge of all her children including the plaintif and also her husband Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao. As per the said will after her death he took possession of the same and her other properties and has been enjoying the same. Item Nos.

2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties are the self acquired properties of their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and he never treated them as joint family properties. The said Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao has been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties till his death on 3.10.1992. Their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao executed a

Will on 7.3.1990 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing all his properties in his favour to the knowledge of the plaintif and his other children.

Therefore after the death of their father, he took the same and enjoying the 12 same. Similarly the item No.6 of the plaint schedule property was purchased by Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, Nimmagadda Subramanya Prasad i.e. the son of the 2nd defendant, defendants 5, 6 and 7 jointly. As such their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao has got 1/5th share in item No.6 of the plaint schedule property. Under the said Will, he bequeathed his 1/5th share in item No.6 of the plaint schedule property to the 4th defendant, as such the plaintif has no right in item No.6 of the plaint schedule property. He further pleaded that item No.4 of the plaint schedule property is self acquired property of the defendants 1, 2, 5, 6, himself and Syamprasad. The 1/6th joint share of Syam Prasad devolved on their mother Venkatravamma which is bequeathed to him. Hence, the plaintif has no share in the said item also. He denied the other allegations in the plaint as to her share in the plaint schedule property and also denied the version of the defendants 5, 19 and 20 in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property.

14)As the plaintif in OS.No.691/1996 in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property he pleaded at the request of the 5th defendant, who is the 1st defendant therein, has been residing in the property. Thus by the time of death of their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao the 1st defendant has been staying in the said item. After his death when he demanded him to vacate and deliver the property by virtue of the will executed by their father, he requested to allow him to continue in the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs.3000/- and continued in the possession as a tenant. The tenancy 13 commenced from month to month commencing from 1st day of calendar month. He paid the monthly rents regularly till October, 1995 and from

November, 1995 onwards he committed willful default in payment of monthly rents. As he wants to have the building for his own use, he issued a notice,

dated 9.8.1996 terminating the tenancy ending by 31.8.1996 but the 5th

defendant/1st defendant therein got it returned with false endorsement and he did not vacate the same. Therefore, he is entitled to evict him and also the defendants 2 and 3 therein (the defendants 19 and 20 in OS.No.95/95).

15)The 5th defendant (1st defendant in OS.No.691/1996 and 2nd defendant in

OS.No.466/1999) pleaded that item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is the

joint family property and it is acquired from out of joint family funds and kept in the name of their mother Late Smt.Nimmagadda Venkatravamma as benami. Item No.2 is no way connected to the joint family or to any of the parties and it is excluded from the plaint schedule property. Their family had business and though the properties of their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao are mostly self acquired, but all the properties are treated as joint family properties. Since he attained adult hood he had to enable his parents to bring up all the children in a manner befitting the status of the family.

Keeping in view of the troubles which his father was facing in order to bring up all the 12 children, he discontinued his education and plunged into the family business. Thus toiled hard to the extent possible. He married 20th defendant in 1968. At the time, as per their custom her parents gave a sum of 14

Rs.40,000/- in cash towards Pasupu Kumkuma in addition to certain other landed properties. The said amount of Rs.40,000/- was entrusted to their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, who utilized the same for joint family purpose and in consideration thereof he gave item No.2 of the plaint schedule property to the 20th defendant in the year 1982 itself in the presence of her parents, himself, other family members, relatives and friends of the family. Subsequently at the time of marriage of his daughter i.e., 19th defendant which was celebrated in the year 1992, the same was given to her towards her Pasupu Kumkuma. The will executed by Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao is not a valid and genuine, it is forged and fabricated and it is not executed in a sound and disposing state of mind. Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property belongs to the joint family properties and item Nos. 4 and 5 belong to himself, defendants 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7and as such the plaintif and other defendants are not entitled for any share therein. He further pleaded that he never collected any rents from the 13th defendant and it is the 1st defendant herein used to collect the rents from him. Except Radha Krishna

Service Station, Tadepalli and Vijayawada there are no other business as contended by the plaintif. There is no landlord and tenant relationship between himself and the 7th defendant (plaintif in OS.No.691/96), he never paid any rent to him much less Rs.3000/-. He is not entitled for any arrears of rent and the quit notice, dated 9-8-1996 issued by the 7th defendant is not valid under law. Hence the suit filed by the 7th defendant in OS.No.691/96 is 15 liable to be dismissed. He further pleaded that the 1st defendant (Plaintif in

OS.No.466/99) himself played an active role and got properties leased out to

the defendants 14, 15 and 17(the defendants 6, 8 and 9 in OS.No.466/99). He further pleaded that the 1st defendant (plaintif in OS.No.466/1999) got himself divided from the family properties though in fact he has to shoulder the responsibilities for the properties that remained joint. As per the arrangement arrived among them he is entitled to collect the rents from the 7th defendant in

OS.No.466/99 and can appropriate the same.

16)Though the 20th defendant filed written statement separately which is adopted by the 19th defendant (2nd defendant in OS.No.691/96) the same is on the lines of the written statement of the 5th defendant.

17)The defendants 8 to 13 remained exparte.

18)The 14th defendant (the 8th defendant in OS.No.466/1999) pleaded that their bank taken the ground floor of the building (item No.4 of the plaint schedule property) for its branch with efect from 1.4.1977 from the defendants 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 and it has been extended from time to time by mutual consent. While so on 25.11.1996 they sent notice to the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7, stating that tenancy is terminated with efect from 31.12.1996 and accordingly they vacated the premises on 31.12.1996 and called upon them to come to the said building for collecting the keys and take possession of the same. It was duly acknowledged by the defendants 1, 2, 6 and 7, but the notice sent to the 5th defendant is returned with an endorsement not claimed.

However, the 1st defendant authorized the defendants 6 and 7 by his letter, 16

dated 16.1.1997 jointly or individually to take possession of the premises. The

2nd and 6th defendants also gave authorization letters to the 7th defendant to take possession of the premises. Further the plaintif got issued a registered notice to him confirming the above facts for which he issued a suitable reply,

dated 24.7.1997 informing the plaintif that the authorization from the 5th

defendant is also required and in view of the conflicting versions, that all the authorization letters should be attested by notary public, but the 1st defendant has not given any such authority as required by them and they did not come jointly to receive the keys from him. On the other hand prior to 9.8.1996 the 7th defendant sent a registered notice to the defendants 1, 2, 5 and 6 and also other tenants for partition of the properties etc. and also directed not to deliver possession of the tenanted premises or handover keys of the tenanted premises to the 5th defendant. Hence on 24.7.1997 they sent a reply under those circumstances they were constrained to file Inter Pleader suit in

OS.No.1358/1999 on the file I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada. As

they already vacated the premises, there is no landlord and tenant relationship between them and deposited the rents before the court in the said suit. They also paid all the arrears of rent till 31.12.1996 in the current account No.2 of the Babu Rajendra Prasad and others as per the usual practice. The said suit was decreed and as per the directions of the court the keys were delivered to the 6th defendant.

19)The defendants 15, 16 and 18 remained exparte.

17

20)The 17th defendant (9th defendant in OS.No.466/99) pleaded that he has taken item No.5 of the plaint schedule property from Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao on lease. After his death they are depositing the monthly rent in the account of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in view of the family disputes among the family members of late Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao. It is not necessary party to the suit. The plaintif has no cause of action against it and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.

21. Basing on the above pleadings, the then preceding officer settled the following issues for trial in OS.No.95/1995

1) Whether the deceased Venkataravamma was the absolute owner of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and if it is so, the will, dated 10.12.1986 is true, valid and binding on the plaintif?

2) Whether the items No.2 to 5 of the schedule are the ancestral properties of Late Venkata Krishna Rao?

3)Whether the Will, dated 7.3.1990 in favour of D7 is true, valid and binding on the plaintif?

4)Whether the item No.5 is the self acquired property of D1, D2, D5 to D7?

5) Whether the D17 is a necessary party to this suit?

6)Whether the plaintif is entitled to the partition of the property as prayed for?

7)Whether the plaintif is entitled for the mesne profits as claimed?

8)Whether the plaintif is entitled for the future profits?

9) To what relief?

On 8-6-05 Addl. Issue were framed as per the orders in IA.No.1542/2004 and IA.No.163/2005 after impleding the 19th and 20th defendants respectively.

1)Whether item no.2 of schedule property was gifted to Smt. Nimmagadda Syamala Devi in 1982?

18

On 13-12-2006 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders in

IA.No.983/2005 after amending the plaint.

1)Whether item no.6 is also joint family property under D6 entitled to possession or not?

2)Whether the plaintif is not entitled to claim any share in the joint 1/5th share of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in item No.6 of plaint schedule property or not?

3)Whether the suit is properly valued or not?

ii)The then preceding officer settled the following issues for trial in

OS.No.O.S.691/1996

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover Rs.36,000/- being arrears of rent from November, 1995 to October, 1996?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled to evict the defendant from suit property?

3)Whether the will dated 7-3-90 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

4)Whether the suit property was gifted to Syamala Devi, W/o. Respondent in 1982?

5)Whether the quit notice is valid?

6)To what relief?

On 8.6.2005 Addl. Issue was framed as per the orders in IA.No.1076 / 2004 and 1541/2004 after impleding the defendants 2 and 3 respectively

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to seek eviction of defendants from the schedule property?

iii) The then preceding officer settled the following issues for trial in

OS.No.O.S.466/99

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to the partition of item nos.1 and 2 of the schedule properties as prayed for?

2)Whether the 7th defendant is liable to render accounts as prayed for?

3)To what relief?

19

On 2-7-2003 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders in

IA.No.2210/2002 after impleading the 10th defendant.

1)Whether the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property in nature?

2)Whether D5 is no more under law?

3)Whether the plaintif is entitled to a share in the plaint schedule property?

On 29-3-2012 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders, in

IA.No.2210/2002 after impleading the 10th defendant.

1)Whether the defendants 10 and 11 have got any right and entitled to claim any share in the plaint schedule properties?

2)Whether the defendants 10 and 11 are necessary and proper parties to the suit?

22)During the course of trial, before clubbing with suit in OS.No.95/1995 on behalf of the plaintif, PW1 and PW2 are examined and Exs.A1 to A31 are marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 to DW8 are examined and Exs. B1 to B196 are marked in OS.No.95/1995.

23)During the course of trial, before clubbing with suit in O.S.No.95/1995 on behalf of the plaintif, PW1 is examined and Exs.A1 to A40 are marked in

OS.No.691/1996.

24Heard both sides and defendant 6 and 7 and 14th defendant filed written arguments also.

25.ISSUE No.1 (in OS.No.95/1995):

1) Whether the deceased Venkataravamma was the absolute owner of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and if it is so, the will, dated 10.12.1986 is true, valid and binding on the plaintif?

i)The version of the plaintif is their mother Venkatravamma was the original owner of the property of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property having acquired the same with her Sridhana and she died intestate leaving behind them.

20 ii)According to the plaintif, the defendants 6 and 7, item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is the absolute property of their mother

Venkataravamma. But according to the defendants 3 and 5 it is purchased by

Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in the name of his wife

Venkataravamma as benami. According to the 3rd defendant all the properties are acquired from the income derived by her landed property. Whereas according to the 5th defendant though the properties are self acquired properties of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao but they are treated as joint family properties.

iii)In order to shore up his contention by way of affidavit filed in lieu of his chief-examination while reiterating her version she got marked the

Exs.A1 to A31. In Ex.A1 notice, dated 23.2.1993 and she pleaded the same with regard to the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. During the cross examination by DW5, PW1 categorically stated that her mother purchased the item No.1 with the amount derived her by selling her landed property. As culled out from the evidence adduced by the parties and cross examination item No.1 of the plaint schedule property purchased by their mother

Venkataravamma under Ex.B8 sale deed, dated 22.9.1969. In order to shore up her contention that their mother got Stredhana property from the income from it she purchased the item No.1 the plaintif produced Exs.A28 and A29 (Exs.B94 and B95) sale deeds, dated 5.4.1965 executed by Venkataravamma and her sister. In fact Ex.B94 sale deed, dated 5.4.1965 is one of the sale deeds executed by their mother is produced by DW8 i.e. the 5th defendant himself. As could be seen from the recitals in Ex.B94 sale deed and the said document shows the said property is devolved on the mother of the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10 and her sister from their parents. It may be a fact that it is elicited during the cross examination of PW1 by the 3rd defendant that on the reverse of Ex.A8 postal acknowledgement there is an endorsement to the 21 efect that the consideration was paid by the husband of Venkataravamma.

But by itself it cannot be said that the property is purchased by Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao as Benami.

iv)On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7, contended Exs.B21 to B25, are the income tax assessment orders filed by

Late Venkataravamma from 1983 to 1991 she showed item No.1 as her property in her income tax returns and he also showed the rent from it in her income tax returns. This itself probablises the property was her absolute property. Moreover Ex.B25 was submitted by Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao on behalf of his wife, who died on 3.10.1989. In Ex.B25 there is a note that the assessee is died on 3.10.1989 therefore, the rental income ofered only upto September, 1989.

v)DW1 and DW2 [1st defendant and 6th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 and DW1 is plaintif and DW2 is the 3rd defendant in OS.No.466/99] deposed on the lines of their version by way of their respective affidavits filed in lieu of their chief examination.

vi)It may be a fact that it is elicited from Ex.B24 and B25 are the income refund orders for the assessment years 1989-1990 and 1990-1991,

dated 14.3.1991 do not bear the signatures of Venkataravamma, but it cannot

be ignored that it bears acknowledgment from the income tax officer.

Moreover Exs.B21 and B22 are the income tax assessment orders of

Smt.N.Venkatravamma for the assessment years 1986-1987 and 1987-1988 bears the signatures of Venkatramma. Therefore, the filing of the income tax returns by showing the income of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property as her separate property coupled with Exs,A24 and A25 and B8 proves Item No.1 22 of the plaint schedule property is absolute of property of the mother of the plaintif.

vii)Be it noted that the plaintif also examined PW2 and he is cross examined on behalf of the plaintif, but subsequently when he was recalled for the purpose of cross examination on behalf of the 3rd defendant as he did not turn up and the plaintif filed a memo stating that she could not secure him, therefore her chief examination affidavit is eschewed. But it will not throw away her evidence in her cross examination conducted by some of the contesting defendants. Since some facts are elicited during his cross examination. The then Preceding Officer while passing the orders on the docket she categorically mentioned ‘chief affidavit is only eschewed’ and not the entire evidence.

viii)The very fact that after demise of Venkataravamma her husband

Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao filed returns on her behalf itself probablises that the property never treated as joint family property. Therefore, this proves item No.1 of the property is the absolute property of their mother of the plaintif.

ix)At this juncture it is here pertinent to mention the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7 (7th defendant is the plaintif in

OS.No.691/1996 and 3rd and 4th defendants in OS.No.466/99) that PW2 in her

chief examination deposed that Venkataravamma possessed one property.

Therefore, the evidence of PW2 is also proves that the item No.1 of the plaint 23 schedule property is the absolute property. But the evidence of chief examination of PW2 is eschewed on 5.11.2015. Therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration.

x)The defendants 3 and 5 contended that the property was purchased by Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao as binami in the name of his wife. But Exs.A28 and A29 are the sale deed shows she has some

Sridhana property from her parents. It is an admitted fact that

Venkataravamma has only one sister and they have no brothers. As such it probablises the version of the plaintif, defendants 6 and 7 that the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property (item No.4 of the plaint schedule property in

OS.No.466/199) is the absolute property of Venkataravamma.

xi)Though the 5th defendant (1st defendant in OS.No.691/1996 and 2nd defendant in OS.No.466/1999) as DW8 deposed on the lines of his version but the same is not substantiated. DW2 categorically deposed that there are no

Binami transactions in the family. Moreover, as the defendants 3, 19 and 20 did not come into witness box to depose on oath as to their version and make themselves available for cross-examination, therefore, their version cannot be taken into consideration especially when the version of the plaintif is substantiated by Exs.A28 and A29 to show she has source of income to purchase the property.

xii) DW2 and DW3 who are the defendants 6 and 7 by way of their respective affidavits categorically deposed that LateNimmagadda 24

Venkataravamma executed will on 10.12.1986 in a sound and disposing state of mind. They got marked the said will as Ex.B7. It is here apposite to mention that Ex.B7 is marked through DW1 during his cross examination. DW1 was cross examined by the defendants 5, 6, 7 by the plaintif at length. But later he was not turned up subsequently the 3rd defendant filed IA.No.1/2015 for cross examination of PW1 and PW2 and DW1 to DW8, but DW1 was not turned up. As such his chief examination was eschewed. But when the 1st defendant cross examined at length by the rival parties as well as the plaintif apart from the defendants 6 and 7 the admissions elicited during the cross examination of DW1 cannot be eschewed that is why it seems the then Preceding officer consciously mentioned his chief affidavit is eschewed and it is not the entire evidence is eschewed. Therefore, his evidence in the cross examination as not eschewed can be taken into consideration. Ex.B7 is the Will, dated 10.12.1986 marked through DW1 cross examination and he admitted that the said will is executed by their mother.

xiii)DW2 who is the 6th defendant categorically deposed that himself and his father are the attestors to the said will Ex.B7 executed by their mother.

It may be a fact that the evidence of DW2 is not verbatim as annunciated in 63 of Indian Succession Act. In S.A.Quddus Vs. S.Veerappa, Reported

in AIR 1994 Karn. 20 it is observed that the law does not emphasis

that the witness must use the language of the Section to prove the

required merits thereof.

25 xiv)However he categorically deposed that himself and his father and mother were present at the time of execution of will. He further categorically deposed after the contents in Ex.B7 will, dated 10.12.1986 were read over only the executant signed on it and he was present at that time. He further categorically deposed that the will is executed by the executants at her house.

It is elicited from him that the 1st two sheets are stamp papers and the remaining two papers on white paper. He further deposed that stamp papers show that they were purchased on 12.9.1986 but his evidence is that Ex.B7 was typed. However it is elicited from him that the date is mentioned in ink.

His evidence further goes to show that the stamp papers were purchased in advance initially a draft was prepared. He further deposed that he was not present at the time of preparing draft. But his evidence goes to show that the contents were read over to the executants in his presence and then he signed.

It is to be noted that the another attestor to Ex.B7 is none other than the father of the plaintif and defendants 1 to 10 and is no more. Therefore by examining DW2 there is a sufficient compliance of Section 63 of Indian

Evidence Act and Section 68 of Indian Succession Act. The plaintif,

DW2 and DW3 are cross examined as to discrepancy in the name of the mother of the plaintif and the defendants. Exs.A28 and A29 her name is mentioned as Venkata Manoharamma whereas Ex.B7 mentioned as

Venkatravamma. It is suggested to PW1 by DW3 her mother name is

Venkataravamma but not Venkata Manoharamma. But it may be noted that all 26 the parties categorically deposed that including the 5th defendant, DW1, DW3 she was called at Venkataravamma and Venkata Mahoharamma.

xv)Under Ex.B7 the mother of the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10 bequeathed the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property which is shown as A schedule and also all the amounts in her bank account N.S.S., fixed deposits under B schedule are bequeathed to her youngest son Nimmagadda Bhanu

Prasad (7th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 and the plaintif in OS.No.691/1996 and the 4th defendant in OS.No.466/1999) under C schedule i.e. gold, diamonds etc. bequeathed to her 4th daughter.

xvi)It may be a fact that there is no reference to other sons and also as to another son Syam Prasad leaving the house in Ex.B7 will. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7, the evidence of

DW3 i.e. 6th defendant goes to show that the 7th defendant is not settled and his evidence goes to show he completed B.Tech in the year 1986 that means by the time of execution of will he was pursuing studies, whereas he (DW3) completed his graduation in 1968 and since then he started his work as income tax practitioner besides he has petrol bunk and other business and his wife is also lecturer in Mary Stella College. The evidence of DW1 during cross examination by the 5th defendant (DW8) also goes to show by then all are doing their respective business. The 7th defendant is youngest of all of them and he alone was not settled in life by then. Therefore as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7 there is no suspicious 27 circumstances or improbability in bequeathing to the 7th defendant under

Ex.B7. Moreover she gave all her jewelry to her 4 daughters. The evidence of

DW2 and DW3 is corroborative that after the death of their mother on the 11th day their father disclosed about Ex.B7 will executed by their mother and moreover as per bequeath the C schedule properties were distributed among their 4 daughters. Ofcourse PW1 denied the said fact. Therefore, the 7th defendant examined the 9th defendant as DW6. By way of her affidavit she deposed that in June, 1987 when she had been to Vijayawada to her parents house in connection with the delivery of her 2nd issue who was born on July, 1987 her mother informed and showed the will, dated 10.12.1986 executed by her in the presence of her father. She further categorically deposed that in the said will she described the various items of jewelry totaling to 60 Sovereigns and also categorically deposed which item was given to the plaintif, herself and defendants 8 and 10. This evidence corroborates the evidence of DW2 and DW3. In the cross examination the will was showed to her about one month prior to her delivery. She deposed that on the 11th day after the death of her mother at about 3.30 P.M. the property was distributed among her sisters. She further deposed that as the 7th defendant is not at settled by then he bequeathed the house property to him. Her evidence in the cross examination by the plaintif further goes to show after gave amount to her and with the same he purchased the property at Vijayawada subsequent to marriage. Ofcourse PW1 though cross examined by the defendants 6 and 7 on 28 the lines her father purchased a site in her name and gave amounts to construct house she denied the same. But she gave evasive reply that she does not know her father purchased sites and got constructed houses for her sisters. It has to be observed that DW8 is none other than own sister of the defendants 7, 8 and 10. Had the mother has not shown the will and she has not received the gold items of her mother as deposed by her there is no reason for her to depose falsehood. It is suggested to her that the 7th defendant promised to give Rs.50,000/- to her to purchase the gold chain and ofcourse the same is not denied. But I do not find any probability in the said suggestion because had the 7th defendant simply promised to give Rs.50,000/- she depose falsehood because if the plaint schedule property is partitioned her share will be much more high. Therefore, the evidence of DW8 is also probablising the evidence of DW2 as to execution of Ex.B7 will.

xvii)It may be further noted that had they have not executed Ex.B7 will, there is no reason for the defendants 1 and 6 (DW1 and DW2) to admit the will who are none other than own brothers of the plaintif and 7th defendant because in the absence of such will they will also got share in item

No.1 of the plaint schedule property. It has to be seen that even the plaintif pleaded that their mother was in possession of her property till her death i.e.

3.10.1989 and he categorically deposed that from 3.10.1989 the 1st defendant is enjoying the property by collecting the rents from the tenants. This also probablises the will in acted upon.

29 xiii)It may be noted that though the defendants 6 and 7 contended by referring to Exs.B26 to B46 property tax receipts are in the name of

Venkataravamma and not in the name of Bhanu Prasad. But they are not much helpful to say they are pertain to item No.1 of the plaint schedule property as they do not bear door number and they bear only assessment number and assessment number is not mentioned in the plaint schedule. However as already stated even according to the plaintif from 3.10.1989 the 7th defendant is collecting the rents of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property i.e. since the death of their mother.

xix)In the light of my forgoing discussion this issue is answered affirmatively.

26)ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.2, dt. 8.6.2005 IN OS.NO.95/1995:-

2) Whether the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property was gifted to Smt.Nimmagadda Syamala Devi in 1982?

i)The plaintif categorically pleaded Syam Prasad left the house and since 1970 his whereabouts not known to anybody. Though the 1st defendant pleaded in his written statement as well as in the plaint in OS.No.466/99 that

Syam Prasad used to visit now and then his petrol bunk at Tadepalli but he also pleaded that he does not know his whereabouts since a long time and his address is also not available to anyone. The version of the 1st defendant that now and then he used to visit his (1st defendant) petrol bunk at Tadepalli the same is not substantiate because his chief affidavit is eschewed. In the cross examination which is held on 24.7.2003 he categorically stated his where 30 abouts’ are not known from 1970. His evidence is about 15 years back i.e. 15 years prior to 2003. DW2, DW3, DW5 as well as DW3 also admitted that since 1970 Syam Prasad where abouts are not known. In Ex.B47, dated 7.8.1993 the will executed by the father of the plaintif, defendants 1 to 10 also it is categorically recited by the father of the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10,

Syam Prasad left the house as bachelor on 10.10.1970. Therefore, it is an admitted fact that the where abouts of Syam Prasad are not known to the plaintif or defendants 1 to 10 or any of the relatives since more than 7 years prior to filing the suit. Under Section 108 of Indian Evidence Act, ifit is proved that a person has not heard by his who has naturally heard of him he had been not live, a presumption arises that he is not alive. When it is nobody’s case that Syam Prasad was alive. Hence this issue is answered affirmatively.

27)ISSUE Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 in OS.NO.691/96 AND ADDL. ISSUE No.1:

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover Rs.36,000/- being arrears of rent from November, 1995 to October, 1996?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled to evict the defendant from suit property?

4)Whether the suit property was gifted to Syamala Devi, W/o. Respondent in 1982?

5)Whether the quit notice is valid?

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to seek eviction of defendants from the schedule property?

For the sake of brevity and convenience in order to avoid repetition as the evidence that is to be appreciated is common, these issues are answered together.

31

i)The plaintif who is 7th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 as DW5 in his affidavit filed in lieu of his chief examination reiterated his version and deposed the 5th defendant started living in plaint schedule property (item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/95) with the permission of their father. After his death by virtue of will Ex.A4, dated 7.3.1990 he became the absolute owner of the same, therefore when he demanded the 5th defendant to vacate the premises he requested to continue as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.3000/-, accordingly paid rents upto October, 1995 and from November, 1995 onwards he committed default. Thereupon he issued Ex.A1 quit notice on 9.8.1996 terminating the tenancy by the end of 31.8.1996, but even thereafter he did not vacate the premises and he got it returned under Ex.A2. But in the cross examination he categorically deposed that there is no documentary evidence to show the defendant (the 5th defendant herein) paid the rents.

ii) The learned counsel for the plaintif in OS.No.691/1996 tried to impress upon the court that the defendants 19 and 20 did not come into witness box to prove their respective versions. Hence their version cannot be taken into consideration. It is admitted by DW8 that there is no document to show

Rs.40,000/- was given to his wife in lieu of Pasupukumkuma by her parents, that the said amount was entrusted to his father and the said house was given to their daughter (19th defendant). It is rightly contended by him that though the defendants 5, 19 and 20 pleaded, the said property was given in the presence of elders, relatives and friends but none of them were examined.

32

Their version is vague. The names of the relatives and friends are not mentioned. Moreover as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 7th defendant (Plaintif in OS.No.691/1996) as per Section 122 of Transfer of

Property Act gif of immovable property must be made voluntarily and without consideration. Moreover Section 123 of Transfer of Property Act postulates that for the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be efected by a registered instrument and attested by atleast two attestros. But in this case there is no such registered document. As such the defendants in

OS.No.691/1996 failed to prove their version. At the same time it cannot be

ignored that except the vague suggestion, the plaintif (7th defendant in

OS.No.95/95) also failed to prove landlord and tenant relationship.

iii)The learned counsel urged that even in the absence of proof of landlord and tenant relationship, the 7th defendant is entitled to claim item

No.2 as the absolute owner thereof and in pursuance of the answer to the issues in OS.No.95/95 he is entitled to claim delivery of possession of the same as held by the apex court by order dated 17.6.2005 passed in

C.R.P.No.2962/2004. When once the case of the defendants 5, 19 and 20 that item No.2 was given to the 20th defendant is false and untenable under law, the contention of the 7th defendant is to be accepted. The 7th defendant got issued Ex.A1 quit notice, which is marked in OS.No.691/1996 terminating the tenancy to the correct address which the 5th defendant (in OS.No.95/1995) got it returned with false postal endorsement. Hence notice is valid and there is 33 no proof of arrears of rents from November, 1996. Hence the plaintif in

OS.No.691/96 is entitled for the relief. But I am unable to find force in the

contention of the learned counsel for the plaintif in OS.No.691/96 simply because the defendant failed to prove his case that he is residing in the property as a owner when the plaintif (7th defendant in OS.No.95/1995) himself pleaded even during life time of his father, the defendant (5th defendant in OS.No.95/1995) is in possession of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property with permission it is for the plaintif (7th defendant) to prove the landlord and tenant relationship to get decree in OS.No.691/1996, if the plaintif (7th defendant in OS.No.95/95) failed to prove the landlord and tenant relationship, his remedy for eviction is not by virtue of Ex.A1 quit notice but the remedy is otherwise.

iv)It may be noted that admittedly the 7th defendant (Plaintif in

OS.No.691/1996) is an income tax assesses. As could be seen from the

contents in Ex.B22 to B25 which are income tax assessment orders show his mother showed the income from the rents from her property in her income tax returns. Had really the 7th defendant let out the property to the 5th defendant as a tenant and he paid the rents till October, 1995, the income tax returns of the 7th defendant for the said period certainly discloses the same. But the 7th defendant/plaintif did not choose to file any such document to prove his contention that there is landlord and tenant relationship between himself and the 5th defendant. Therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn Under 34

Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act. When the landlord and tenant relationship is not proved, the validity of Ex.A1 notice (in OS.No.691/1996) does not arise.

Hence these issues are answered negatively.

28)ISSUE NOS. 2, 3, 4, ADDL. ISSUES 1 AND 2 AND ISSUE NO.3 IN

OS.No.691/96 and ISSUE NO.1 IN OS NO.466/99 and ADDL. ISSUES

Nos. 1 and 3:

2)Whether the item Nos. 2 to 5 of the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Late Venkata Krishna Rao?

3)Whether the Will, dated 7.3.1990 in favour of D7 is true, valid and binding on the plaintif?

4)Whether the item Nos. 4 and 5 are the self acquired properties of D1, D2, D5 to D7?

1)Whether the item No.6 of the plaint schedule property is also joint family property under control and possession of D6 or not?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled to claim any share in the item No.6 of the plaint schedule property or not?

3)Whether the will dated 7-3-90 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to the partition of item nos.1 and 2 of the schedule properties as prayed for?

2)Whether the 7th defendant is liable to render accounts as prayed for?

On 2-7-2003 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders in

IA.No.2210/2002 after impleading the 10th defendant, dated 2.7.2003.

1)Whether the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property in nature?

2)Whether D5 is no more under law?

3)Whether the plaintif is entitled to a share in the plaint schedule property?

On 29-3-2012 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders in

IA.No.2210/2002 after impleading the 10th defendant, dated 2.7.2003.

35

1)Whether the defendants 10 and 11 have got any right and entitled to claim any share in the plaint schedule properties?

2)Whether the defendants 10 and 11 are necessary and proper parties to the suit?

For the sake of brevity and convenience in order to avoid repetition as the evidence that is to be appreciated is common, these issues are answered together.

i)The plaintif as PW1 reiterated her version in respect of items 2 to 6 of plaint schedule properties also. Similarly the defendants 5 to 7 deposed on the lines of their respective version as DW2, DW3 and DW8. In Ex.A1 legal notice, dated 23.2.1993 originally she claimed share in respect of item Nos. 1 to 5 contending that they are the own properties of their father Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, improved by him but treated as joint.

Again she issued Ex.A11 modification notice to delete the said version and to substitute that the property left behind by Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna

Rao is not his property but own ancestral in nature and with ancestral nucleus he acquired and improved them. According to the 5th defendant item Nos. 2 and 3 are absolute properties of his father but treated as joint. Whereas the version of 3rd defendant is also that they are ancestral properties being purchased with ancestral nucleus. But according to the defendants 6 and 7 that they are the absolute properties of their father. Though the plaintif contended while issuing Ex.A11 modification notice as if the earlier version is typographical mistake describing the nature of the property cannot be treated as a typographical mistake but certainly it shows she improvised her case.

36 ii)The plaintif in order to substantiate her version that there is a ancestral property got marked Exs.A26 and A27 sale deeds (DW8 also filed copies of the same documents which are marked as Exs.B93 and 95). Ex.A26 is the sale deed, dated 4.1.1952 in favour of 3rd parties for an extent Ac.1.92 cents land at their native village at Dokiparru executed by Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao and the defendants 1 to 5 who are undivided sons.

iii)As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7 the recitals in the documents goes to show the property covered under the said property is purchased by executant by late Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao who is the father of the plaintif and the defendants 1 to 10 on 22.1.1948. Ex.A27 dated 22.3.1964 executed by late Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao in favour of the 3rd parties. The recitals in the said document clearly shows that part of the property covered under the document is acquired by the vendor. By virtue of patta, dated 18.4.1928 issued by

Deputy Thasilar, Pamarru and the remaining extent purchased by him on 20.4.1946 from one Adusumilli Nageswara Rao under registered sale deed.

Therefore, Exs.A26 and A27 do not probablises that there were any ancestral nucleus and the said documents in fact show the said property was absolute property of the father of the plaintif and the defendants 1 to 10. During her cross examination by the defendants 6 and 7 PW1 categorically stated her father was the original owner of the property covered under Exs.A26 and A27.

37 iv)Though the 3rd defendant contended the plaint schedule properties were purchased with ancestral nucleus and cross examined the plaintif, DW1 and DW2, he did not choose to come into witness box to depose on oath as to his version and make himself available for cross-examination. Therefore, the said version cannot be taken into consideration.

v)The 1st defendant is eldest son his evidence goes to show he was born in 1934. His evidence during the cross examination of PW1 goes to show in 1937 itself their father shifted to Vijayawada and worked as a clerk and in or about 1941 or 1942 he started business. The evidence of 5th defendant as

DW8 goes to show his father started business and subsequently he started joining the sons as partners. Though he stated in or about 1960 or 1961 partnership among defendants 1 and 2 and their father started but he categorically deposed that he does not know when they were made as partners. The 3rd defendant did not come into witness box. Therefore his version that the property is the ancestral property cannot be taken into consideration. In fact, DW1 during the cross examination of DW6 and DW7 categorically testified that their father is the absolute owner of the property covered under Exs.A26 and A27. As such there is no probable evidence to show there is any ancestral nucleus.

vi)The evidence of DW8 in the cross examination of the defendants 6 and 7 goes to show that his father has Ac.2.00 land in Dokiparru village. It may be the property covered under Ex.A26 and he categorically deposed that 38 the amount derived from the said land is not sufficient to meet the expenses of family hence his father used to borrow the amount. Therefore, his father started business.

vii)Though the defendants 6 and 7 deposed that in 1967 there was family settlement but it is not supported by any documentary evidence.

However, DW1, DW2, DW3 and DW8 also stated in 1960 or 1961 the 1st defendant started the business. In fact the evidence of DW1 and DW8 goes to show in or about 1984 one petrol bunk Radha Krishna Service station was exclusively given to the 1st defendant and the other sons relinquished their rights. DW2 also admitted the said fact. DW1 testified he divided from his father in 1961. The evidence elicited from the cross examination of PW1, DW1 to DW8 goes to show there are other businesses, partnership business by name N.V.K.R. Agencies, Manohar Krishna Service station which is now come to the 6th defendant and N.V.K.R. Advertising agency. All these are admittedly partnership firms. Exs.B66 to B69 are the income tax assessment orders for 1982-1983 to 1985-1986 of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. All the assessments order the status of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao is shown individually and he showed the property and income from N.V.K.R.

Agencies and the income from item Nos. 2 and 3 also in his individual capacity.

It is not the case of the plaintif, the defendants 3 or 5 that at any time Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao submitted his income tax returns in the capacity of kartha of joint family. He always paid income tax in his individual 39 capacity showing the income from partnership business as a partner itself shows that no property was treated as joint family property.

viii)There is no dispute that the sale deeds pertaining to item Nos. 2 and 3 stands in the name of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B15 is the original sale deed pertaining to item No.3 which is in his name and

Ex.B66 to B69 assessment orders further corroborated the same. In order to prove Ex.B47 will, dated 7.3.1990 said to be executed by their father for his properties DW4, DW5 and DW7 are examined.

ix)DW4 is the son of the scribe (who drafted) is examined to identify the signature of his father Allanki Venkata Ramana on Ex.B47 will. Ex.B49 is the death certificate of Allanki Venkata Ramana, dated 22.5.1991. During his cross examination the plaintif got marked Ex.A22 and Ex.A23. Ex.A22 is the signature of the scribe to Ex.B47 Will on the Xerox copy of deposition of the scribe as DW8 in another matter. Ex.A23 is the signature of the scribe on the

Xerox copy of the will in dispute. It is elicited from him that in Ex.A22 his father signed as Allanki Venkataramana Vralu and in Ex.A23 the signature is as

Allanki Venkata Ramana. But he categorically stated that he used to sign in both ways sometimes as Allanki Venkataramana and sometimes as Allanki

Venkata Ramana Vralu. Exs.A22 and A23 did not disclose any diference except on additional word “Vralu” under Ex.A22. As could be seen from the description of the deposition DW8 is an Advocate as such he has no reason to speak false hood had Ex.B47 does not contain the signature of his father.

40

x)DW5 Tejomurtula Narasimha Murthy is an identifying witness at the time of registration of Ex.B47 will. He deposed that on 7.3.1990 when

Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao presented his will for registration

before Sub Registrar Office, Gandhinagar he was present. He categorically

deposed that before the Sub Registrar Office, the testator Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao admitted that he executed the said will and put his signature. Then he signed before Sub Registrar Office, as identifying witness along with other witnesses. He further testified that the Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao put his signature as well as thumb impression on the said will before the Sub Registrar. During cross examination the counsel for the plaintif obtained his specimen handwriting and got it marked as Ex.A25. But it is no way helpful and material. Though his specimen writing Ex.A24 when compared with his signature on Ex.B47 there are some minor variations found between the two, but it cannot be ignored that Ex.B47 is dated 7.3.1999 and

Ex.B23 is obtained on 10.11.2003. Thus there is a gap of 13 years, it is well known that the signatures and handwritings keep on changing in the course of time. It is further elicited from him that one of the attestor to Ex.B47 is his typist P.M.Sarma. He further testified that his full name is Markendaya Sarma but he does not know his complete surname. As could be seen from him initially the signature of the 2nd attestor on the photocopy of the will is marked as Ex.A25 but immediately the preceeding officer made a note that the counsel for the plaintif pleaded the last page of the photo stat copy of will and 41 asked the witness to identify whether the particular signature written in pen on the said Photostat copy is that of P.M.Sarma, who is the typist of the witness, but as it was recently written with a pen on the Photostat copy of the will, the question is rejected. Therefore, Ex.A25 cannot be considered. Ex.B48 the death certificate of 2nd attestor Markendaya Sarma shown he died on 22.5.1991.

xi)DW7 Nandigam Nageswara Rao is examined as 1st attestor to

Ex.B47. His evidence goes to show that he got acquaintance with Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao through the 6th defendant. He deposed that one day prior to his execution of Ex.B47 will Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao wanted him to come to the Sub Registrar Office, Gandhinagar, to attest the will, which he intend to execute on the following day. Accordingly he went there they all met in the office of the document writer

A.Venkataramana which is situated opposite to Sub Registrar’s office. It is his evidence is that Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao gave instructions to the scribe Venkata Ramana to prepare the draft and after preparing the draft he wanted him to get it typed and when the scribe got it typed and read over, then Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao also read it and satisfied then put his signature on the will in their presence. Then he wanted himself and another who are already there to attest the same and both of them attested in his presence. The testator wanted the scribe to sign, then the scribe wanted 42 to put his signature. Thus the evidence of DW7 proves the execution of Will in accordance with Section 63 of Indian Succession Act.

xii)It is elicited from DW7 he worked as an accountant in a firm

Srivenkateswara Engineering Contract and he knows the family of Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao through the 6th defendant. His evidence goes to show that as an accountant he used to attend the office of Brahmaiah and company. He denied the suggestion given by the counsel for the 5th defendant that the 6th defendant brought a drafted document to him and asked him to sign in the document as an attestor and at his request he signed on it. Ofcourse during the cross examination of plaintif he stated that he does not know the total members of the family. But it is an admitted fact that the 6th defendant is an income tax practitioner and he was working in the

Brahmaiah and Company which is a chartered accountant firm. Therefore, there is no improbability in DW7 knowing the 6th defendant and the testator.

There is no reason for DW7 to speak falsehood. Though DW4, DW5 and DW7 are subjected to cross examination nothing worth was elicited to shatter their evidence. DW1, DW2 and DW6 are not benefices under the wills. In fact,

DW6 will get share in item Nos. 1 to 3 had her parents died intestate.

Therefore, there is no reason for her to support the wills which benefits the 7th defendant. Thus by unshattered evidence of DW7 who is an attestor to

Ex.B47, the defendants 6 and 7 proved that late Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao executed Ex.B47 will in a sound and disposing state of mind. The 43 evidence of PW1 goes to show her mother and father died all of sudden due to heart problem, prior to that they are hale and healthy. Therefore, it proves that

Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao executed the will in a sound and disposing state of mind. Under Ex.B47 will he bequeathed item Nos. 2 and 3 of the plaint schedule properties and also undivided 1/5th share in item No.6 to the 7th defendant. It is recited in the will that he is a freedom fighter and thus getting pension from the Government. He further recited that he did business of Khadi along with his sons, later on 31.9.1961 they divided the said business and got it assessed in income tax department, since then himself and his sons are doing their respective business and looking after their respective properties, therefore whatever the properties are acquired are his self acquired properties. He also recited as to his another son Syam Prasad leaving the house on 10.10.1970, that he performed the marriage of all the daughters by giving all lanchanams and all the sons and daughters are well settled but the 7th defendant is financially not much sound when compared to other sons and all other sons are financially well settled. Even the fact elicited from the defendants 1 and 2 and DW1 to DW3 goes to show by 7.3.1990, the defendants 1, 6, and 5 are already well settled in their respective business.

DW1 categorically deposed that during the cross examination in 1984 other partners i.e. other brothers relinquished their share in Radha Krishna service station to him. The evidence of DW2 goes to show he is an income tax practitioner from 1969. Apart from that he has also business and he has 44 petrol bunk, Manohar Krishna service station. It is also admitted fact that the defendants 2 and 5 have also got business. The evidence of DW3 goes to show that he completed his graduation in Engineering in 1988. Therefore by the date of execution of Ex.B47 it is only the 7th defendant who was not financially well settled when compared to other children. Therefore, there is no probability or suspicious circumstances in execution of Ex.B47 will. While answering the issue No.1 in OS.No.95/95 as already stated though PW1 denied that her father gave landed property and also financially helped for construction of the house, DW6 who is the 9th defendant categorically admitted that her father gave land and also financially supported for construction of house. This evidence of DW6 fortifies the recital in Ex.47 will.

xiii)In respect of his movable properties the testator categorically mentioned he has one diamond ring, rubi and 6 soverigns of Gold chain and he bequeathed the said jewelry to the 7th defendant. In respect of cash lying to his credit in his banks and LIC he made arrangement that out of the said cash

Rs.1,00,000/- shall be kept for philanthropy. He further mentioned that his son

Syam Prasad has share in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property and in respect of 1/6th share of Syam Prasad he made an arrangement that his share of amount shall be used for the education of poor children. The validity of leaving aside the said clause at this juncture I would like to refer this clause to prove the genuineness of the will. He not only made arrangement for the 7th defendant, but also made arrangement for philanthropy works this shows the 45 genuineness of the will. So far as the 3rd defendant is concerned he did not choose to cross examine DW4 to DW8. Therefore, so far the 3rd defendant is concerned their evidence is remained unchallenged.

xiv)The foregoing discussion proves Ex.B47 Will is executed by Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in a sound and disposing state of mind and by virtue of Ex.B47 Will, the 7th defendant because the absolute owner of item

Nos. 2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties.

xv)Exs.B185 and 183 are the mutation endorsements, dated 20.9.1993 in respect of item Nos. 2 and 3 respectively also shows Ex.B47 will is acted upon.

xvi)Now coming to items 4 and 5 (item Nos. 1 and 2 in OS.No.499/96) of the plaint schedule properties Exs.B88 and B89 (the certified copies of said sale deeds are marked through DW1 as Exs.B1 and B2 and his chief examination eschewed are the sale deeds pertaining to the same. The evidence of DW1 to DW3 and DW8 supported by Ex.B88 shows it is purchased in the name of the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 and Syam Prasad and Ex.B89 shows item No.5 is purchased by the defendants 1 to 6. It is an admitted fact that by the time of both the sale deeds, the 7th defendant was minor and represented by his father.

xvii)The learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7 contended that one of the purchasers by name Syam Prasad of item No.4 of the plaint 46 schedule property was not known from 1970. But Ex.B88 is dated 12.10.1971.

However he tried to impress upon the court that it is purchased by the purchasers in their individual capacity out of their share of income from partnership firm Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao & Sons. However the defendants have not filed any partnership deed pertaining to Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao & Sons. But the recitals in Ex.B88 shows that the consideration is paid by way of cheques in the name of Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and sons. As already stated though the partnership deed is not filed it shows that the property is purchased for the benefit of the purchasers mentioned in the document but not as joint family.

As already stated Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao always used to file his returns in his individual capacity but not as Kartha of any joint family.

Moreover as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7, the 14th defendant who is the tenant of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property pleaded that they took lease from the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 from 1.4.1997 and rent is being deposited in the account of Babu Rajendra Prasad and brothers. That shows the property is purchased for the benefit of individuals but not for the benefit of joint family.

xviii) DW1 is cross examined that in 1993 he gave paper publication along with the 3rd defendant that their parents died intestate and similarly he also gave report against his father under Exs.B96, 98 and 99 and the private complaint filed by the 1st defendant against his father in OS.No.261/1999 47

Under Ex.B97 alleging that he is misappropriating the amounts collected from item No.4 of the plaint schedule property. It is elicited from DW2 in 1982 they gave power of attorney to their father to collect the rents for item Nos. 4 and 5 of the plaint schedule property. Had the properties are purchased as joint properties, the question of giving power of attorney to Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao does not arise as he will be kartha of joint family.

Moreover, this shows that the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 are joint owners of item

No.5 of the plaint schedule property.

xix)Be it noted that for item No.4 of the plaint schedule property,

Syam Prasad’s is a joint owner. But his whereabouts are not known from 1970.

Hence he is presumed to be died by 1977 and 1978. Ex.B47 as discussed supra late Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao made an arrangement with regard to the share of Syam Prasad in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property. But it is to be noted that Syam Prasad presumed to be died by the end 1977 or 1978 where as the mother of the plaintif died on 18.10.1988.

Therefore, Syam Prasad is presumed to be predeceased his mother.

Admittedly, he left the house as a bachelor. Therefore, the mother is only class-I heir of Syam Prasad. As such the property bequeathed to Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in respect of item No.4 for the share of

Syam Prasad is not valid. However under Ex.B7 the mother has not made any arrangement in respect of the share of Syam Prasad in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property, her 1/6th share will be devolved on the plaintif, the 48 defendants 1 to 10 and her husband Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao that means the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10 will get 1/72th share each.

The income of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property shall be given to the other joint owners i.e. the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 for maintenance of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property and to help the education of poor children.

Thus the defendants 1, 2, 5 and 10 each will get 1/6th share + 1/72th share i.e.

13/72th in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property. In item No.5 of the plaint schedule property, the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 will have 1/5th share.

xx)Coming to item No.6 of the plaint schedule property Exs.A30 and

A31 shows it is purchased by Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao i.e.

father of the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10 and one Subrahmanya Prasad,

S/o. the 2nd defendant. Being minors the 7th defendant is represented by his father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and Subrahmanya Prasad is represented by 2nd defendant. As already discussed supra, the properties are purchased for the benefit of individuals but not as joint. Therefore in item

No.6 also the plaintif as well as the defendants 2, 4, 8 to 10 will not have any share. As per Ex.B47 the share of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao devolved on DW3 i.e. 7th defendant. The 7th defendant deposed that himself,

Subrahmanya Prasad i.e. son of the 2nd defendant and 6th defendant gave the property to the 4th defendant and got marked the certified copies of gift deed, dated, 26.7.1993 which is marked as Ex.B188. Therefore, the learned counsel for the plaintif, the defendants 6 and 7 contends that the 5th defendant has 49 1/5th share in item No.6 of the plaint schedule property and remaining 4/5th share belongs to the 4th defendant. It may be noted that item No.6 is added subsequently and subsequent to adding of item No.6, the defendants 6 and 7 filed their additional written statement. But in the additional written statement they did not mention about Ex.B188. Therefore, whatever it be one of the joint owner by name Subrahmanya Prasad is not party to the suit. As stated the plaintif has no share in the said property. Under those circumstances I do not want to dwell into Ex.B188 gift deed.

29. ISSUE NO.2 IN OS.No.466/1999:

1)Whether the 2nd defendant is liable to render accounts as prayed for.

i)The plaintif who is his joint owner of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property extensively let in evidence to show as per the orders in interlocutory application filed by the 14th defendant in OS.No.1358/99, the keys pertaining to ground floor of item No.4 (item No.1 in OS.No.466/99) handed over to the 6th defendant. However DW8 (2nd defendant in this suit) admitted that he let out to Andhra Bank with consent of other brothers. He further testified that later he himself let out the same in 1997 or 1998 to the present tenant and collecting the rents. Therefore, he is liable to account the amounts collected by him to all the joint owners of item No.4 and 5 of the plaint schedule properties.

ii)In view of my forgoing discussion, this issue is answered affirmatively.

30)ISSUE No.5 in OS.No.95/1995:

50

5)Whether the 17th defendant is a necessary party to this suit?

i)Admittedly the 17th defendant is the tenant of item No.5 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/1995 (which is item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/99). As could be seen from the record the rents are credited by the 17th defendant in bank. It is pleaded by them due to disputes between the family members of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna

Rao, the defendant bank deposited the rents in the account of Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. In fact during the pendency of suit, the 17th defendant filed petition in IA.No.947/2006 in OS.No.466/99 they want to vacate the premises by the first of January, 2007. At the instance of the 3rd defendant. In IA.No.1/2007 an advocate receiver is appointed on 7.6.2007 to manage the item No.5 of the plaint schedule property and to take possession from the 17th defendant. In IA.No.947/2006 in OS.No.499/96 the court passed the orders, dated 20.6.2007 directing the 7th defendant to handover the keys to the receiver and receiver took possession of the item No.5 of the plaint schedule property from the 17th defendant all for tenders to lease out the same. But at the time the petitioner delivered the plaint schedule property, he found the building is exclusively damaged and directed the 17th defendant’s officials to get the damaged estimated, but they did not get the damages estimated under the back ground of these facts, the 17th defendant being a tenant and in possession of one of the item of plaint schedule property he is a proper and necessary party.

51 ii)Hence this issue is answered.

31)ISSUE NO.6 IN OS.No.95/95:

i)Whether the suit is property valued or not?

ii)Whether the plaintif is entitled to the partition of the property as prayed for?

i)In the light forgoing discussion and the answers to issue Nos. 1 to 4 and additional issue No.1, dated 8.6.2005 and additional issue Nos. 1 and 2,

dated 11.12.2006 I found that the plaintif is not entitled to any share in items

No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 of the plaint schedule properties. However, she is entitled to 1/72th share in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property.

31.ISSUE NOs.7 and 8 in OS.No.95/1995:-

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled for the mesne profits as claimed?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled for the future profits?

i)In view of the answers to issue No.6 the plaintif is entitled for mesne profits for her 1/72th share. However, mesne profits has to be ascertained by way of separate application Under Order XX Rule 12 C.P.C. in

Saint Mary’s Educational Society, Represented by its Secretary and

others Vs. Dr. Qutubuddin Ahmed and others, reported in 2007 (3)

ALT 214. Our Hon’ble High Courtheld that

the mesne profits to be ascertained on an

application made under the mandatory provision of Rule 12 of Order 20 of C.P.C., fixation of mesne profits straightaway by courts below without following the said mandatory procedure 52 is not legal. The damages as to be ascertained by way of separate application.

ii)Accordingly she is entitled for mesne profits and future profits till delivery of her share.

14.ADDL. ISSUE NO.3, DATED 13.12.2006 IN OS.NO.95/95:

Whether the suit is properly valued or not?

i)The contention of the defendant is that except in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property the plaintif is not entitled for any other items as they are not joint family properties the plaintif is not in possession of item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the plaint schedule properties but the plaintif paid only fixed court fee for the item Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6. But she ought to have paid the court fee Under Section 34 of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act. But it may be noted that none of the defendants has not specifically pleaded exactly when the plaintif was ousted. Moreover, the plaintif is having share in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property.

ii)Hence this issue is answered in favour of the plaintif.

32.ISSUE NO.9 IN OS 95/95, ISSUE NO.6 IN OS.NO.691/1996 AND

ISSUE NO.3 IN OS.NO.466/1999:

To what relief?

In view of the answer to issues discussed supra, the suit in

OS.No.466/1999 is preliminarily decreed and the suit is partly decreed

53 preliminarily in OS.No.95/95 allotting 1/72th share each to the plaintif, defendants 3, 4, 8 to 10 and 13/72th share each to the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property (item No.1 of plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/99) and the remaining 1/72th share belongs to the deceased Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in the 1/6th share of

Nimmagadda Syam Prasad shall be utilized for the purpose as per his bequeath under Ex.B47, dated 7.3.1990.

The plaintif is also entitled for mesne profits by way of separate application for her 1/72th share in the said item No.4 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/95 (item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in

OS.No.466/99).

Item No.5 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/95 (item No.2 of plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/99) shall be partitioned among the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 (the plaintif and the defendants 1 to 4 in

OS.No.466/99) and each of them shall get 1/5th share in the said item.

The rest of the claim of the plaintif in OS.No.95/95 is dismissed.

The suit in OS.No.691/1996 is also dismissed.

In the circumstances the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 7th day of March, 2017

VII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN O.S.NO.95/95

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PLAINTIFF: PW1 : Adusumilli Chinnamma PW2: Nimmagadda Sivaramakrishna Prasad

DEFENDANT: DW1: Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad 54

DW2: Nimmagadda Lalitha Prasad DW3: Nimmagadda Bhanu Prasad DW4: A.V.Ramana DW5: Tejomurthula Narasimha Murthy DW6: Smt.Potluri Lakshmikantha DW7: Nadigam Nageswara Rao DW8: Nimmagadda Rama Prasad

Documents marked on behalf of Plaintif

Ex.A1: Office copy of notice dated 23.02.1993 Ex.A2: Returned cover of D1. Ex.A3: Acknowledgement of D2. Ex.A4: Acknowledgement of D3 Ex.A5: Acknowledgement of D5 Ex.A6: Acknowledgement of D6 Ex.A7: Acknowledgement of D7 Ex.A8: Acknowledgement of D8 Ex.A9: Acknowledgement of D9 Ex.A10: Acknowledgement of D10 Ex.A11: Office copy of notice dated 06.03.1993 Ex.A12: Returned notice of D1 Ex.A13: Acknowledgement of D2 Ex.A14: Acknowledgement of D3 Ex.A15: Acknowledgement of D6 Ex.A16: Acknowledgement of D7 Ex.A17: Acknowledgement of D8 Ex.A18: Acknowledgement of D9 Ex.A19: Acknowledgement of D10 Ex.A20: Reply for Ex.A1 dated 16.03.1993 Ex.A21: Acknowledgement of D4 Ex.A22: Signature of Allanka Venkata Ramana of deposition in C.A. No.6673/2003 dated 14.10.2000(marked through DW4) Ex.A23: Signature of Allanka Venkata Ramana on the last page of Will (marked through DW4) Ex.A24: Specimen hand writing of T. Narasimha Murthy dated 10.11.2003 (marked through DW5) Ex.A25: Signature of P.M.Sarma as 2nd attestor in photostat copy of will (marked through DW5 on 10.11.2003) Ex.A26: Registration extract of sale deed dated 05.01.1952 executed by N.V.Krishna Rao and his minor sons for the property relating to Dokiparru village. Ex.A27: Registration extract of sale deed dated 23.03.1962 executed by N.V.Krishna Rao at Dokiparru. Ex.A28: Registration extract of sale deed dated 06.04.1965 executed by Venkata Rama Monoharam. Ex.A29: Registration extract of sale deed dated 06.04.1965 executed by Venkata Rama Manoharam. Ex.A30: Sale Deed executed by Kommineni Venkataratnam in favour of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and others(registration extract) 55

dated 07.07.1981.

Ex.A31: Sale deed executed by Nanapaneni Venkateswara Rao in favour of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and Others (registration extract)

dated 07.07.1981.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defendants

Ex.B1: Registration Extract of the Registered sale deed executed by Palaparti Purnanandam dated 12.10.1971. Ex.B2: Registration Extract of the Registered sale deed executed by Kasinaduni Sambasiva Rao dated 27.01.1978. Ex.B3: Market value certificate issued by S.R.O. VJA., for item No.5 dated 30.04.1999. Ex.B4: Marked value certificate issued by S.R.O., VJA., for item No.4 dated 29.04.1999. Ex.B5: Estimate issued by the Licensed Surveyor estimating the value of G.F.,F.F. and S.F. of item No.4 dated 25.08.1999. Ex.B6: Estimate issued by the Licensed Surveyor estimating the value of G.F., F.F. and S.F. of item no.5 dated 25.08.1999. Ex.B7: Will executed by Nimmagadda Venkatravamma dated 10.12.1986. Ex.B8: Registration Sale Deed executed by Smt. G.Savithri dated 22.09.1989. Ex.B9: Death Certificate of Smt. N.Venkatravamma dated 03.11.1989. Ex.B10: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B11: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B12: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B13: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B14: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B15: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B16: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B17: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B18: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B19: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B20: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B21: Income Tax Assessment Order of Smt. N.Venkatravamma for the Assessment year 1986-87 dated 14.10.1987. Ex.B22: Income Tax Assessment Order of Smt. N.Venkatravamma for the Assessment year 1987-88. Ex.B23: Income Tax Assessment Order of Smt. N.Venkatravamma for the assessment year 1988-89 dated 11.03.1991. Ex.B24: Income Tax Refund Order for the Assessment year 1989-90 of Smt. N.Venkatravamma dated 14.03.1991. Ex.B25: Income Tax Refund Order for the Assessment year 1990-91 of Smt. N.Venkatravamma dated 14.03.1991. Ex.B26: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B27: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B28: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma.

56

Ex.B29: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B30: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B31: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B32: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B33: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B34: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B35: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B36: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B37: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B38: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B39: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B40: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B41: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B42: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B43: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B44: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B45: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B46: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B47: Registered Will executed by Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 57 07.03.1990. Ex.B48: Death Certificate of P.Markandeya Sarma dated 25.07.2003. Ex.B49: Death Certificate of Allanki Venkataramana dated 08.02.2003. Ex.B50: Registered Sale Deed executed by Smt. Panuganti Tulasamma in favour of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 21.04.1964. Ex.B51: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B52: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B53: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B54: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B55: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B56: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B57: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B58: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B59: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B60: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B61: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B62: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B63: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B64: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B65: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B66: Income tax Assessment Order for the Assessment year 1982-1983 of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 01.06.1985. Ex.B67: Income Tax Assessment Order for the Assessment year 1983-84 of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 05.09.1986.

58

Ex.B68: Income Tax Assessment Order for the Assessment year 1984-85 of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 05.09.1986. Ex.B69: Income Tax Assessment Order for the Assessment year 1985-86 of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 05.09.1986. Ex.B70: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B71: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B72: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B73: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B74: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B75: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B76: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B77: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B78: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B79: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B80: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B81: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B82: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years 59 commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B83: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B84: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B85: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B86: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B87: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B88: Original of Ex.B1 Registered Sale Deed executed by Palaparti Purnanandam dated 12.10.1971. Ex.B89: Original of Ex.B2 Registered Sale Deed executed by Kasinaduni Sambasiva Rao dated 27.01.1978. Ex.B90: Certified copy of Plaint in O.S.No.1358/199 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil

Judge Court, Vijayawada. dated 16.06.1999.

Ex.B91: Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No.1358/1999 dated 12.07.2000. Ex.B92: Certified copy of Decree in O.S.No.1358/1999 on the file of I Addl. Junior

Civil Judge's Court, Vijayawada dated 12.07.2000.

Ex.B93: Registered Sale Deed executed by Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao

dated 04.01.1952.

Ex.B94: Registered Sale Deed executed by Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatrama Manoharam and Smt. Yerneni Lakshmi Narsamma dated 05.04.1965. Ex.B95: Registered Sale Deed executed by Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatrama Manoharam dated 05.04.1965. Ex.B96: News Paper publication given by D1 and D3 against D7 dated 04.09.1993. Ex.B97: Private Complaint filed by D1 against Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in C.C. No.276/1991 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada date 13.11.1990. Ex.B98: News paper publication got issued by D1 dated 28.05.1989. Ex.B99: News paper publication got issued by D1 Ex.B100: Letter written by D1, D2, D5, D6 and D7 dated 13.06.1995. Ex.B101: Distribution of responsibilities in the administration of properties of N.Babu Rajendra Prasad and Brothers among the co-owners enclosed to Ex.B100

dated 13.06.1995.

Ex.B102: Letter addressed by D1 to the Assistant General / Zonal Manager, Bank of 60

Baroda, Madras dated 06.06.1995. Ex.B103: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B104: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B105: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B106: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B107: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B108: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B109: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B110: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B111: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B112: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B113: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B114: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B115: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B116: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item 61

Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B117: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B118: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B119: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B120: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B121: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B122: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B123: Letter from D1 Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad to D14 Andhra Bank

dated 19.07.1995.

Ex.B124: Letter from D5 N.Rama Prasad to D14 Andhra Bank dated 21.05.1994. Ex.B125: Letter from D5 N.Rama Prasad to D14 Andhra Bank dated 08.07.1994. Ex.B126: legal notice got issued by D5 N. Rama Prasad to D14 Andhra Bank dated 15.08.1994. Ex.B127: Postal acknowledgement for Ex.B126 dated 17.08.1994. Ex.B128 Reply legal notice got issued by D14 Andhra Bank to Ex.B126 dated 27.08.1994. Ex.B129: Letter from N.Babu Rajendra Prasad and Brothers to D14 Andhra Bank

dated 25.10.1993.

Ex.B130: Letter addressed by D1 N.Babu Rajendra Prasad on behalf of N.Babu Rajendra Prasad & Brothers to D14 Andhra Bank. Ex.B131: Letter from D1 Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad on behalf of N.Babu Rajendra Prasad and Brothers to D14 Andhra Bank dated 01.06.1995. Ex.B132: Settlement Agreement dated 01.11.1982. Ex.B133: Death Certificate of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 03.10.1992, Ex.B134: Transfer of Ration Card in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad dated 19.05.1994. Ex.B135: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 62 to 1413. Ex.B136: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1392 to 1413. Ex.B137: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1393 to 1413. Ex.B138: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1394 to 1413. Ex.B139: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1395 to 1413. Ex.B140: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1396 to 1413. Ex.B141: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1397 to 1413. Ex.B142: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1398 to 1413. Ex.B143: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1399 to 1413. Ex.B144: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B145: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B146: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B147: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B148: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B149: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B150: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B151: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B152: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B153: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413.

63

Ex.B154: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B155: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B156: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B157: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B158: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B159: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B160: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B161: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B162: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B163: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B164: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B165: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B166: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B167: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B168: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B169: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B170: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B171: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413.

64

Ex.B172: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B173: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B174: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B175: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B176: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B177: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B178: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B179: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B180: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B181: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B182: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B183: Mutation endorsement issued by V.M.C. In respect of Assessment No.26414 dated 20.09.1993. Ex.B184: Mutation endorsement issued by V.M.C. In respect of Assessment No.26423 dated 27.09.1993. Ex.B185: Mutation Endorsement issued by V.M.C. In respect of Assessment No.26416 dated 06.10.1993. Ex.B186: Letter from Bill Collector, Ward No.28/2, to the Commissioner V.M.C.

Dated 07.10.1993.

Ex.B187: Pass Book of N.Venkatravamma for her S.B. Account No.2330 in Indian Bank, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada. Ex.B188: Registration extract of gift deed executed by D6 and D7 and Nimmagadda Subramanya Prasad in favour of Defendant No.4 along with typed copy. Ex.B189: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B190: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B191: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, 65

Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B192: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B193: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B194: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B195: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B196: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN O.S.NO.691/1996

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT: PW1: Bhanu PrasadNil Documents marked on behalf of Plaintif Ex.A1: 25.08.2004: Office copy of legal notice dated 09.08.1996. Ex.A2: 25.08.2004: Return R.P. cover Ex.A3: 25.08.2004: Sale deed dated 27.02.1965. Ex.A4: 25.08.2004: Certified copy of will dated 07.03.1990. Ex.A5: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 02.12.1983. Ex.A6: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 17.02.1984. Ex.A7: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 25.02.1985. Ex.A8: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 04.11.1985. Ex.A9: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 23.01.1986. Ex.A10: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 16.07.1986. Ex.A11:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 10.03.1987. Ex.A12:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 22.08.1987. Ex.A13:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 12.01.1988. Ex.A14:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 09.09.1988. Ex.A15:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 31.03.1989. Ex.A16:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 15.07.1989. Ex.A17:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 15.02.1990. Ex.A18:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 27.08.1990. Ex.A19:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 12.03.1991. Ex.A20:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 31.08.1991. Ex.A21:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 25.02.1992. Ex.A22: 25.08.2004: Endorsement certificate given by Municipal Corporation

dated 20.09.1993.

Ex.A23:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 25.06.1994. Ex.A24:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 19.09.1994. Ex.A25:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 29.03.1995. Ex.A26:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 01.11.1995. Ex.A27:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 14.05.1996. Ex.A28:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 30.09.1996. Ex.A29:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 26.02.1997. Ex.A30:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 15.11.1997. Ex.A31:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 06.11.1997. Ex.A32:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 01.02.1999.

66

Ex.A33:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 11.09.1999. Ex.A34:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 27.03.2000. Ex.A35:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 02.09.2000. Ex.A36:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 23.02.2001. Ex.A37:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 06.08.2001. Ex.A38:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 18.01.2002. Ex.A39:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 16.08.2002. Ex.A40:25.08.2004: Certificate of Architect dated 29.12.2003.

Documents marked on behalf of Defendant Nil

VII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: SMT. M.MADHURI,

VII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA.

FAC V ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,VIJAYAWADA.

TUESDAY THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017

O.S.NO.95/1995 , OS 691/1996 AND OS 466/1999

OS.NO.95/1995

Between:

Smt.Adusumilli Chinnamma… Plaintif

A N D

1) Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad

2) Nimmagadda Dhana Ratna Prasad

3) Nimmagadda Sivarama Prasad

4) Nimmagadda Udaya Bhaskara Durga Bhavani Prasad

5) Nimmagadda Rama Prasad

6) Nimmagadda Lalitha Prasad

7) Nimmagadda Bhanu Prasad

8) Smt.Kosaraju Durga Bhavani

9) Smt.Potluri Lakshmi Kantha

10) Smt.Potluri Jayalakshmi

11) Approach Computers, Rep. by its Managing Partner, R.Kumar Raja.

12) Potluri Krishna Murthy

13) C.R.Ravichandran

14) Andhra Bank, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Eluru Road.

15) A.P. Book Distributors.

16) The Hindu Paper Office

17) Bank of Baroda, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Vijayawada.

18) Nimmagadda Bala Bhaskara Krishna Prasad (18th defendant is added as per the orders Of High Court of Judicature, A.P., Hyderabad In CRP.No.4625/2001)

19) Nimmagadda Venkata Ramani (19th defendant is added as per the orders Of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.1542/2004,

Dated 15.3.2005)

20) Nimmagadda Syamala Devi (20th defendant is added as per the orders Of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.163/2005,

Dated 15.3.2005) … Defendants

OS.NO.691/1996

Between:

2

Nimmagadda Bhanu Prasad… Plaintif

A N D

1) Nimmagadda Ram Prasad

2) V.V.Ramani

3) N.Syamala Devi

4) Nimmagadda Siva Ram Prasad (4th defendant is added as per the orders of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.253/2007,

Dated 21.1.2008) … Defendants

OS.NO.466/1999

Between:

Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad… Plaintif

A N D

1) Nimmagadda Dhana Ratna Prasad

2) Nimmagadda Ram Prasad

3) Nimmagadda Lalitha Prasad

4) Nimmagadda Bhanu Prasad

5) Nimmagadda Shyam Prasad 6)Andhra Pradesh Book Distributors.

7) Swrnandhra Telugu Daily

8) Andhra Bank, Eluru Road.

9) Bank of Baroda, Musuem Road Branch, Vijayawada.

10) Smt.Adusumilli Chinnamma (10th defendant is added as per the orders of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.2210 /2003,

Dated 26.6.2003)

11) Nimmagadda Sivarama Prasad (11th defendant is added as per the orders Of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.254 /2007,

Dated 21.1.2008) … Defendants

These suits are coming on this day before me on in the presence of Sri M.Lakshman, Advocate for the plaintif, Sri S.Rajendra Prasad, Advocate for the 1st defendant, the defendants 3 and 5 are in person; Sri V.Veerasalingam, Advocate for the defendants 6 and 7; Sri K.Laxmi Pathi, Advocate for the 14th defendant; Sri D.T.Vyas, Advocate for the 17th defendant; Sri Ch.Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the 19th defendant, of Sri CH.G.R., Advocate for the 20TH defendant and the defendants 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18 remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

The suit in OS.No.95/1995 is comprehensive suit originally filed for partition of item Nos. 1 to 5 of the plaint schedule properties against the 3 defendants 1 to 17. Subsequently as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court under various IAs, the defendants 18 to 20 were added and item No.6 is also added to the plaint schedule properties.

2)The suit in OS.No.691/1996 is filed by the plaintif who is the 7th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 originally against the sole defendant i.e. the 5th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 for his eviction of the plaint schedule property (which is item No.2 of plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/1995) subsequently as per the orders in diferent IAs defendants 2 to 4 were added.

3)The suit in OS.No.466/1999 is filed for partition of the plaint schedule properties by the plaintif, who is the 1st defendant in OS.No.95/1995 originally against the defendants 1 to 9 who are some of the defendants in

OS.No.95/1995 and one Syam Prasad. Subsequently the defendants 10 and

11 are added as per the orders in diferent IAs.

4)For better appreciation I would like to refer the parties by way of table:

S.N OS.NO.95/19 OS.NO.691/19 OS.NO.466/19

Name of the Party

o 95 96 99

Smt.Adsumilli 1Plaintif -10th defendant Chinnamma NimmagaddaBabu 21st defendant-Plaintif Rajendra Prasad NimmagaddaDhana 32nd defendant - 1st defendant Ratna Prasad Nimmagadda 4 3rd defendant 4th defendant - Sivarama Prasad NimmagaddaUdaya 5BhaskaraDurga 4th defendant - - Bhavani Prasad Nimmagadda Rama 6 5th defendant1st defendant 2nd defendant Prasad Nimmagadda Lalitha 7 6th defendant - 3rd defendant Prasad NimmagaddaBhanu 8 7th defendantPlaintif 4th defendant Prasad 9Smt.Kosaraju Durga 8th defendant - - 4

Bhavani Smt.PotluriLakshmi 10 9th defendant - - Kantha 10th 11Smt.Potluri Jayalakshmi - - defendant Approach Computers, 11th 12Rep. by its Managing - - defendant Partner: R.Kumar Raja. 12th defendant 13Potluri Krishna Murthy - - 13th 14 C.R.Ravichandran - - defendant Andhra Bank, Rep. by 14th 15its Branch Manager, - 8th defendant defendant Manager, Eluru Road. 15th defendant 16A.P. Book Distributors. - 6th defendant 16th 17The Hindu Paper Office - - defendant Bank of Baroda, Rep. 18by its Branch Manager,17th defendant - 9th defendant Vijayawada NimmagaddaBala BhaskaraKrishna Prasad (18th defendant is added as per the18th 19 - - orders Hon’ble Highdefendant Court of Judicature, A.P. Hyderabadin

CRP.No.4625/2001)

Nimmagadda Venkata Ramani (19th defendant 20is added as per the19th defendant -- orders in IA.No.1542 / 2004 Nimmagadda Syamala Devi (20th defendant is added as per the 2120th defendant3rd defendant - ordersin

IA.No.163/2005, dated

15.3.2005. VallurupalliVenkata 22-2nd defendant- Ramani NimmagaddaSyam 23--5th defendant Prasad SwarnandhraTelugu 24--7th defendant Daily

5)Though there are some diferences with regard to the boundaries from item No.2 of plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/1995 and in OS.No.466/1999 it is claimed by all parties item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in 5

OS.No.95/1995 is the plaint schedule property in OS.No.691/1996. It is an

admitted fact that item Nos.4 and 5 of plaint schedule properties in

OS.No.95/1995 are item No.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties in

OS.No.466/1999.

6)As per the orders in IA.No.1263/2001, dated 22.7.2002 in

OS.No.95/1995, OS.No.466/1999 is clubbed, to record common evidence in

OS.No.95/1995. Subsequently as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in

CRP.No.5820/2005, 1071/2006 and 1072/2006 all the three suits i.e.

OS.No.95/1995, OS.No.691/1996 and OS.No.466/1999 are clubbed and

common evidence is recorded in comprehensive of suit in OS.No.95/1995.

7)The admitted facts of the case are the defendants 1 to 7 and one

Nimmagadda Syam Prasad who is the 5th defendant in OS.No.466/1999 are the sons and the plaintif, defendants 8 to 10 are the daughters of one Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and Venkataravamma. The 18th defendant is the son of the 3rd defendant, 20th defendant is wife and 19th defendant is the daughter of the 5th defendant in OS.No.95/1995.

8)The case of the plaintif (10th defendant in OS.No.466/09) is their mother died intestate on 3.10.1989 and she was the absolute owner of item No.1 of plaint schedule property having acquired the same with her own Sridhana property. Their father also died on 3.10.1992 and he was the owner of the item Nos. 2 to 6 of schedule property besides cash and other movables. After the death of their mother Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, her entire estate 6 devolved upon her husband i.e. their father, herself and the defendants 1 to 10 Under Hindu Succession Act and they got 1/12th share each and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the estate left by their mother

Venkataravamma. During her life time she let out the entire item No.1 of the plaint schedule building and she used to get the rent @Rs.6000/- per month.

From 3.10.1989 the 7th defendant has been collecting the rents. As on the date of filing of the suit the 7th defendant is liable to pay 1/12th share similarly he has also amounts S.B. Account in Syndicate Bank, Labbipet Branch,

Vijayawada in which also she has 1/12th share. She further pleaded items

Nos.2 to 6 are acquired by his father with ancestral nucleus and improved by him. Originally their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao got 8 sons i.e. defendants 1 to 7 and Syam Prasad and he left the house in the year 1970 without any information to his family till today or seen by him any of his kith and kin. As such she got 1/9th share and joint possession in the plaint schedule property. Therefore as he presumed to be died and his share devolved on their mother Venkataravamma. On the death of Venkatravamma, the share of her son Syam Prasad devolved upon her husband Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, herself and the defendant 1 to 10. As Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao has also got 1/108th share in the share of

Syamprasad and as such his share enlarged to 1/9th +10/108 herself and the defendants 1 to 10 got equal shares in the estate of Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao. Therefore, i.e. 1188/108 share. He further pleaded that 7 the amount of Rs.13,00,000/- is rent deposited by the Bank of Baroda (17th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 and 9th defendant in OS.No.466/99) and apart from the plaint schedule properties there are several joint family business concerns which are Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao News Agency,

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao & sons, Vijayawada, N.V.K.R. Advertising,

Vijayawada; Radha Krishna Service Station at Tadepalli, N.B.R. Prasad &

Brothers, Vijayawada and Monohar Krishna Service Station. The share of Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao devolved upon his daughters and sons equally. Though she demanded the defendants 1 to 10 to cooperate with her for partition and separate possession of the same they did not cooperate with her. On the other hand, the 7th defendant got issued a publication in Eenadu daily, dated 23.3.1993 to the efect that Venkatravamma has executed a will, on 10.12.1986 bequeathing her entire property in his favour which is not correct and it must be fabricated, concocted and forged one. Therefore, he got issued a notice, dated 23.2.1993 demanding the defendants 1 to10 to partition the same. Having received the same they did not issue any reply and kept quit. Again on 6.3.1993 he issued another notice as there are some typographical errors in the earlier notice, except the 1st defendant others acknowledged the same. The 7th defendant alone got issued reply notice on 17.3.1993 with all false allegations. The 11th defendant is tenant to item No.1, defendants 12 and 13 are the tenants of ground floor of item No.3, the 8 defendants 14 to 16 are the tenants in item No.4 and the 17th defendant is tenant in item No.4. Hence he filed the suit.

9)The version of the 1st defendant (plaintif in OS.No.466/99) is himself and the defendants 2,5,6,7 and Syamprasad purchased the item No.4 of the plaint schedule property (item No.1 in OS.No.466/99) under a registered sale deed,

dated 12.10.1971 for a valid consideration of Rs.55,000/- from one Palaparthi

Poornandam and others. Similarly himself and the defendants 2, 5, 6 and 7 (defendants 1 to 4 in OS.No.466/99) purchased the item No.5 (item No.2 in

OS.No.466/99) of the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed,

dated 31.1.1978 from Kasinadhuni Sambasivarao. Therefore, they are the joint

owners of the said property, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and they let out the item No.4 to the 14th defendant (8th defendant in

OS.No.466/99) and item No.5 is let out to the 17th defendant (9th defendant in

OS.No.466/99) The 5th defendant (2nd defendant in OS.No.466/99) has been

looking after the afairs of the building even without their consent since 6 years prior to the filing of the suit and also he let out the same without the consent of the other joint owners to some part of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property (Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/99) to the 15th defendant (6th defendant in OS.No.466.99) and 7th defendant in

OS.No.466/1999 and collecting the rents. He is also not rendering proper

accounts for the amounts collected by him and has been misappropriating the same for his own benefit. While so, in January, 1997 the 14th defendant (8th 9 defendant in OS.No.466/1999) vacated the premised in their occupation and kept the same under the lock. But they did not hand over the keys of the tenanted building. Subsequently they filed OS. No.1358/99 on the file of I

Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada for deposit of the keys. They used to credit the rents upto 31.12.1996 in the joint account of himself and other brothers i.e. the defendants 2, 5, 6 and 7 (defendants 2 to 4 in OS.No.466/99).

Similarly the 17th defendant (9th defendant in OS.No.466/1999) is in occupation of item No.5 of the plaint schedule property (item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/1999) since 1.4.1980 taking undue advantage of the situation did not even enhanced the rent from 7900/- as agreed by him. He has been depositing the rent to the credit of himself and other joint owners bearing Account No.3320 in 17thdefendant Bank (9th defendant in

OS.No.466/1999) and the amount is lying in the said account. Therefore he is

entitled for 1/6th share in the agreed rents in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property (item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/1999) as well

as 1/5th share in item No.5 of the plaint schedule property (item No.1 of the

plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/1999).

10)The 2nd defendant remained exparte.

11)The 3rd defendant (4th defendant in OS.No.699/96) filed written statement contending that their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao is native of Dokiparru village and from there he migrated to Machilipatnam and finally migrated to Vijayawada in or about 1937. Subsequently he started business with the income derived from the ancestral properties at Dokiparru 10 village of Krishna District. He being kartha of the joint family used to look after the same for and on behalf of the joint family. Thereafter, he disposed of the ancestral properties and with the said income he developed the business, with the income from the ancestral nucleus he developed the financial position of the family and acquired the properties i.e. item No.1 to 6 of the plaint schedule properties. He further pleaded that item No.1 of plaint schedule property is purchased by his father in the name of his wife Venkatravamma. In fact the name of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao i.e. mother of the plaintif and defendants 1 to 10 is Venkatrama Manoharam but not

Venkataravamma. It is nothing but Benami transaction. Therefore, though the said property was purchased in her name, the afairs of the said property were looked after by their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao being

Kartha of the joint family. Being coparceners, the defendants 1, 2, 4 to 7 and

Syam Prasad and their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao got each 1/9th share in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. However, the item

No.4 is purchased in the name of the defendants 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and Syam Prasad whose where abouts’ are not known even by the date of purchase of the said property and the item No.5 was purchased in the name of the defendants 1, 2,5, 6 and 7 by their father. Item No.6 of the plaint schedule property is purchased in the name of their father and in the names of the defendants 5, 6, 7 and Nimmaggadda Subrahmanya Prasad i.e. son of the 2nd defendant.

Hence item Nos.4 and 5 (item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property in 11

OS.No.466/99) also are joint family properties and he is being the coparcener

is having 1/9th share in the said two items also.

12)The 4th defendant remained exparte.

13)For the sake of convenience and understanding the version of the 7th defendant is mentioned before the version of the 5th defendant.

The written statement filed by 7th defendant (Plaintif in OS.No.691/1996 and the 4th defendant in OS.No.466/99) is adopted by the 6th defendant (3rd defendant in OS.No.466/99). He pleaded that their mother Venkatravamma was the absolute owner of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and she enjoyed the same, during her life time. On 10.12.1986 she executed a will in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing the said property and some other properties in his favour. The said will is within the knowledge of all her children including the plaintif and also her husband Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao. As per the said will after her death he took possession of the same and her other properties and has been enjoying the same. Item Nos.

2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties are the self acquired properties of their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and he never treated them as joint family properties. The said Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao has been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties till his death on 3.10.1992. Their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao executed a

Will on 7.3.1990 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing all his properties in his favour to the knowledge of the plaintif and his other children.

Therefore after the death of their father, he took the same and enjoying the 12 same. Similarly the item No.6 of the plaint schedule property was purchased by Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, Nimmagadda Subramanya Prasad i.e. the son of the 2nd defendant, defendants 5, 6 and 7 jointly. As such their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao has got 1/5th share in item No.6 of the plaint schedule property. Under the said Will, he bequeathed his 1/5th share in item No.6 of the plaint schedule property to the 4th defendant, as such the plaintif has no right in item No.6 of the plaint schedule property. He further pleaded that item No.4 of the plaint schedule property is self acquired property of the defendants 1, 2, 5, 6, himself and Syamprasad. The 1/6th joint share of Syam Prasad devolved on their mother Venkatravamma which is bequeathed to him. Hence, the plaintif has no share in the said item also. He denied the other allegations in the plaint as to her share in the plaint schedule property and also denied the version of the defendants 5, 19 and 20 in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property.

14)As the plaintif in OS.No.691/1996 in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property he pleaded at the request of the 5th defendant, who is the 1st defendant therein, has been residing in the property. Thus by the time of death of their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao the 1st defendant has been staying in the said item. After his death when he demanded him to vacate and deliver the property by virtue of the will executed by their father, he requested to allow him to continue in the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs.3000/- and continued in the possession as a tenant. The tenancy 13 commenced from month to month commencing from 1st day of calendar month. He paid the monthly rents regularly till October, 1995 and from

November, 1995 onwards he committed willful default in payment of monthly rents. As he wants to have the building for his own use, he issued a notice,

dated 9.8.1996 terminating the tenancy ending by 31.8.1996 but the 5th

defendant/1st defendant therein got it returned with false endorsement and he did not vacate the same. Therefore, he is entitled to evict him and also the defendants 2 and 3 therein (the defendants 19 and 20 in OS.No.95/95).

15)The 5th defendant (1st defendant in OS.No.691/1996 and 2nd defendant in

OS.No.466/1999) pleaded that item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is the

joint family property and it is acquired from out of joint family funds and kept in the name of their mother Late Smt.Nimmagadda Venkatravamma as benami. Item No.2 is no way connected to the joint family or to any of the parties and it is excluded from the plaint schedule property. Their family had business and though the properties of their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao are mostly self acquired, but all the properties are treated as joint family properties. Since he attained adult hood he had to enable his parents to bring up all the children in a manner befitting the status of the family.

Keeping in view of the troubles which his father was facing in order to bring up all the 12 children, he discontinued his education and plunged into the family business. Thus toiled hard to the extent possible. He married 20th defendant in 1968. At the time, as per their custom her parents gave a sum of 14

Rs.40,000/- in cash towards Pasupu Kumkuma in addition to certain other landed properties. The said amount of Rs.40,000/- was entrusted to their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, who utilized the same for joint family purpose and in consideration thereof he gave item No.2 of the plaint schedule property to the 20th defendant in the year 1982 itself in the presence of her parents, himself, other family members, relatives and friends of the family. Subsequently at the time of marriage of his daughter i.e., 19th defendant which was celebrated in the year 1992, the same was given to her towards her Pasupu Kumkuma. The will executed by Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao is not a valid and genuine, it is forged and fabricated and it is not executed in a sound and disposing state of mind. Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property belongs to the joint family properties and item Nos. 4 and 5 belong to himself, defendants 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7and as such the plaintif and other defendants are not entitled for any share therein. He further pleaded that he never collected any rents from the 13th defendant and it is the 1st defendant herein used to collect the rents from him. Except Radha Krishna

Service Station, Tadepalli and Vijayawada there are no other business as contended by the plaintif. There is no landlord and tenant relationship between himself and the 7th defendant (plaintif in OS.No.691/96), he never paid any rent to him much less Rs.3000/-. He is not entitled for any arrears of rent and the quit notice, dated 9-8-1996 issued by the 7th defendant is not valid under law. Hence the suit filed by the 7th defendant in OS.No.691/96 is 15 liable to be dismissed. He further pleaded that the 1st defendant (Plaintif in

OS.No.466/99) himself played an active role and got properties leased out to

the defendants 14, 15 and 17(the defendants 6, 8 and 9 in OS.No.466/99). He further pleaded that the 1st defendant (plaintif in OS.No.466/1999) got himself divided from the family properties though in fact he has to shoulder the responsibilities for the properties that remained joint. As per the arrangement arrived among them he is entitled to collect the rents from the 7th defendant in

OS.No.466/99 and can appropriate the same.

16)Though the 20th defendant filed written statement separately which is adopted by the 19th defendant (2nd defendant in OS.No.691/96) the same is on the lines of the written statement of the 5th defendant.

17)The defendants 8 to 13 remained exparte.

18)The 14th defendant (the 8th defendant in OS.No.466/1999) pleaded that their bank taken the ground floor of the building (item No.4 of the plaint schedule property) for its branch with efect from 1.4.1977 from the defendants 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 and it has been extended from time to time by mutual consent. While so on 25.11.1996 they sent notice to the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7, stating that tenancy is terminated with efect from 31.12.1996 and accordingly they vacated the premises on 31.12.1996 and called upon them to come to the said building for collecting the keys and take possession of the same. It was duly acknowledged by the defendants 1, 2, 6 and 7, but the notice sent to the 5th defendant is returned with an endorsement not claimed.

However, the 1st defendant authorized the defendants 6 and 7 by his letter, 16

dated 16.1.1997 jointly or individually to take possession of the premises. The

2nd and 6th defendants also gave authorization letters to the 7th defendant to take possession of the premises. Further the plaintif got issued a registered notice to him confirming the above facts for which he issued a suitable reply,

dated 24.7.1997 informing the plaintif that the authorization from the 5th

defendant is also required and in view of the conflicting versions, that all the authorization letters should be attested by notary public, but the 1st defendant has not given any such authority as required by them and they did not come jointly to receive the keys from him. On the other hand prior to 9.8.1996 the 7th defendant sent a registered notice to the defendants 1, 2, 5 and 6 and also other tenants for partition of the properties etc. and also directed not to deliver possession of the tenanted premises or handover keys of the tenanted premises to the 5th defendant. Hence on 24.7.1997 they sent a reply under those circumstances they were constrained to file Inter Pleader suit in

OS.No.1358/1999 on the file I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada. As

they already vacated the premises, there is no landlord and tenant relationship between them and deposited the rents before the court in the said suit. They also paid all the arrears of rent till 31.12.1996 in the current account No.2 of the Babu Rajendra Prasad and others as per the usual practice. The said suit was decreed and as per the directions of the court the keys were delivered to the 6th defendant.

19)The defendants 15, 16 and 18 remained exparte.

17

20)The 17th defendant (9th defendant in OS.No.466/99) pleaded that he has taken item No.5 of the plaint schedule property from Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao on lease. After his death they are depositing the monthly rent in the account of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in view of the family disputes among the family members of late Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao. It is not necessary party to the suit. The plaintif has no cause of action against it and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.

21. Basing on the above pleadings, the then preceding officer settled the following issues for trial in OS.No.95/1995

1) Whether the deceased Venkataravamma was the absolute owner of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and if it is so, the will, dated 10.12.1986 is true, valid and binding on the plaintif?

2) Whether the items No.2 to 5 of the schedule are the ancestral properties of Late Venkata Krishna Rao?

3)Whether the Will, dated 7.3.1990 in favour of D7 is true, valid and binding on the plaintif?

4)Whether the item No.5 is the self acquired property of D1, D2, D5 to D7?

5) Whether the D17 is a necessary party to this suit?

6)Whether the plaintif is entitled to the partition of the property as prayed for?

7)Whether the plaintif is entitled for the mesne profits as claimed?

8)Whether the plaintif is entitled for the future profits?

9) To what relief?

On 8-6-05 Addl. Issue were framed as per the orders in IA.No.1542/2004 and IA.No.163/2005 after impleding the 19th and 20th defendants respectively.

1)Whether item no.2 of schedule property was gifted to Smt. Nimmagadda Syamala Devi in 1982?

18

On 13-12-2006 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders in

IA.No.983/2005 after amending the plaint.

1)Whether item no.6 is also joint family property under D6 entitled to possession or not?

2)Whether the plaintif is not entitled to claim any share in the joint 1/5th share of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in item No.6 of plaint schedule property or not?

3)Whether the suit is properly valued or not?

ii)The then preceding officer settled the following issues for trial in

OS.No.O.S.691/1996

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover Rs.36,000/- being arrears of rent from November, 1995 to October, 1996?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled to evict the defendant from suit property?

3)Whether the will dated 7-3-90 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

4)Whether the suit property was gifted to Syamala Devi, W/o. Respondent in 1982?

5)Whether the quit notice is valid?

6)To what relief?

On 8.6.2005 Addl. Issue was framed as per the orders in IA.No.1076 / 2004 and 1541/2004 after impleding the defendants 2 and 3 respectively

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to seek eviction of defendants from the schedule property?

iii) The then preceding officer settled the following issues for trial in

OS.No.O.S.466/99

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to the partition of item nos.1 and 2 of the schedule properties as prayed for?

2)Whether the 7th defendant is liable to render accounts as prayed for?

3)To what relief?

19

On 2-7-2003 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders in

IA.No.2210/2002 after impleading the 10th defendant.

1)Whether the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property in nature?

2)Whether D5 is no more under law?

3)Whether the plaintif is entitled to a share in the plaint schedule property?

On 29-3-2012 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders, in

IA.No.2210/2002 after impleading the 10th defendant.

1)Whether the defendants 10 and 11 have got any right and entitled to claim any share in the plaint schedule properties?

2)Whether the defendants 10 and 11 are necessary and proper parties to the suit?

22)During the course of trial, before clubbing with suit in OS.No.95/1995 on behalf of the plaintif, PW1 and PW2 are examined and Exs.A1 to A31 are marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 to DW8 are examined and Exs. B1 to B196 are marked in OS.No.95/1995.

23)During the course of trial, before clubbing with suit in O.S.No.95/1995 on behalf of the plaintif, PW1 is examined and Exs.A1 to A40 are marked in

OS.No.691/1996.

24Heard both sides and defendant 6 and 7 and 14th defendant filed written arguments also.

25.ISSUE No.1 (in OS.No.95/1995):

1) Whether the deceased Venkataravamma was the absolute owner of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and if it is so, the will, dated 10.12.1986 is true, valid and binding on the plaintif?

i)The version of the plaintif is their mother Venkatravamma was the original owner of the property of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property having acquired the same with her Sridhana and she died intestate leaving behind them.

20 ii)According to the plaintif, the defendants 6 and 7, item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is the absolute property of their mother

Venkataravamma. But according to the defendants 3 and 5 it is purchased by

Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in the name of his wife

Venkataravamma as benami. According to the 3rd defendant all the properties are acquired from the income derived by her landed property. Whereas according to the 5th defendant though the properties are self acquired properties of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao but they are treated as joint family properties.

iii)In order to shore up his contention by way of affidavit filed in lieu of his chief-examination while reiterating her version she got marked the

Exs.A1 to A31. In Ex.A1 notice, dated 23.2.1993 and she pleaded the same with regard to the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. During the cross examination by DW5, PW1 categorically stated that her mother purchased the item No.1 with the amount derived her by selling her landed property. As culled out from the evidence adduced by the parties and cross examination item No.1 of the plaint schedule property purchased by their mother

Venkataravamma under Ex.B8 sale deed, dated 22.9.1969. In order to shore up her contention that their mother got Stredhana property from the income from it she purchased the item No.1 the plaintif produced Exs.A28 and A29 (Exs.B94 and B95) sale deeds, dated 5.4.1965 executed by Venkataravamma and her sister. In fact Ex.B94 sale deed, dated 5.4.1965 is one of the sale deeds executed by their mother is produced by DW8 i.e. the 5th defendant himself. As could be seen from the recitals in Ex.B94 sale deed and the said document shows the said property is devolved on the mother of the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10 and her sister from their parents. It may be a fact that it is elicited during the cross examination of PW1 by the 3rd defendant that on the reverse of Ex.A8 postal acknowledgement there is an endorsement to the 21 efect that the consideration was paid by the husband of Venkataravamma.

But by itself it cannot be said that the property is purchased by Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao as Benami.

iv)On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7, contended Exs.B21 to B25, are the income tax assessment orders filed by

Late Venkataravamma from 1983 to 1991 she showed item No.1 as her property in her income tax returns and he also showed the rent from it in her income tax returns. This itself probablises the property was her absolute property. Moreover Ex.B25 was submitted by Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao on behalf of his wife, who died on 3.10.1989. In Ex.B25 there is a note that the assessee is died on 3.10.1989 therefore, the rental income ofered only upto September, 1989.

v)DW1 and DW2 [1st defendant and 6th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 and DW1 is plaintif and DW2 is the 3rd defendant in OS.No.466/99] deposed on the lines of their version by way of their respective affidavits filed in lieu of their chief examination.

vi)It may be a fact that it is elicited from Ex.B24 and B25 are the income refund orders for the assessment years 1989-1990 and 1990-1991,

dated 14.3.1991 do not bear the signatures of Venkataravamma, but it cannot

be ignored that it bears acknowledgment from the income tax officer.

Moreover Exs.B21 and B22 are the income tax assessment orders of

Smt.N.Venkatravamma for the assessment years 1986-1987 and 1987-1988 bears the signatures of Venkatramma. Therefore, the filing of the income tax returns by showing the income of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property as her separate property coupled with Exs,A24 and A25 and B8 proves Item No.1 22 of the plaint schedule property is absolute of property of the mother of the plaintif.

vii)Be it noted that the plaintif also examined PW2 and he is cross examined on behalf of the plaintif, but subsequently when he was recalled for the purpose of cross examination on behalf of the 3rd defendant as he did not turn up and the plaintif filed a memo stating that she could not secure him, therefore her chief examination affidavit is eschewed. But it will not throw away her evidence in her cross examination conducted by some of the contesting defendants. Since some facts are elicited during his cross examination. The then Preceding Officer while passing the orders on the docket she categorically mentioned ‘chief affidavit is only eschewed’ and not the entire evidence.

viii)The very fact that after demise of Venkataravamma her husband

Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao filed returns on her behalf itself probablises that the property never treated as joint family property. Therefore, this proves item No.1 of the property is the absolute property of their mother of the plaintif.

ix)At this juncture it is here pertinent to mention the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7 (7th defendant is the plaintif in

OS.No.691/1996 and 3rd and 4th defendants in OS.No.466/99) that PW2 in her

chief examination deposed that Venkataravamma possessed one property.

Therefore, the evidence of PW2 is also proves that the item No.1 of the plaint 23 schedule property is the absolute property. But the evidence of chief examination of PW2 is eschewed on 5.11.2015. Therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration.

x)The defendants 3 and 5 contended that the property was purchased by Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao as binami in the name of his wife. But Exs.A28 and A29 are the sale deed shows she has some

Sridhana property from her parents. It is an admitted fact that

Venkataravamma has only one sister and they have no brothers. As such it probablises the version of the plaintif, defendants 6 and 7 that the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property (item No.4 of the plaint schedule property in

OS.No.466/199) is the absolute property of Venkataravamma.

xi)Though the 5th defendant (1st defendant in OS.No.691/1996 and 2nd defendant in OS.No.466/1999) as DW8 deposed on the lines of his version but the same is not substantiated. DW2 categorically deposed that there are no

Binami transactions in the family. Moreover, as the defendants 3, 19 and 20 did not come into witness box to depose on oath as to their version and make themselves available for cross-examination, therefore, their version cannot be taken into consideration especially when the version of the plaintif is substantiated by Exs.A28 and A29 to show she has source of income to purchase the property.

xii) DW2 and DW3 who are the defendants 6 and 7 by way of their respective affidavits categorically deposed that LateNimmagadda 24

Venkataravamma executed will on 10.12.1986 in a sound and disposing state of mind. They got marked the said will as Ex.B7. It is here apposite to mention that Ex.B7 is marked through DW1 during his cross examination. DW1 was cross examined by the defendants 5, 6, 7 by the plaintif at length. But later he was not turned up subsequently the 3rd defendant filed IA.No.1/2015 for cross examination of PW1 and PW2 and DW1 to DW8, but DW1 was not turned up. As such his chief examination was eschewed. But when the 1st defendant cross examined at length by the rival parties as well as the plaintif apart from the defendants 6 and 7 the admissions elicited during the cross examination of DW1 cannot be eschewed that is why it seems the then Preceding officer consciously mentioned his chief affidavit is eschewed and it is not the entire evidence is eschewed. Therefore, his evidence in the cross examination as not eschewed can be taken into consideration. Ex.B7 is the Will, dated 10.12.1986 marked through DW1 cross examination and he admitted that the said will is executed by their mother.

xiii)DW2 who is the 6th defendant categorically deposed that himself and his father are the attestors to the said will Ex.B7 executed by their mother.

It may be a fact that the evidence of DW2 is not verbatim as annunciated in 63 of Indian Succession Act. In S.A.Quddus Vs. S.Veerappa, Reported

in AIR 1994 Karn. 20 it is observed that the law does not emphasis

that the witness must use the language of the Section to prove the

required merits thereof.

25 xiv)However he categorically deposed that himself and his father and mother were present at the time of execution of will. He further categorically deposed after the contents in Ex.B7 will, dated 10.12.1986 were read over only the executant signed on it and he was present at that time. He further categorically deposed that the will is executed by the executants at her house.

It is elicited from him that the 1st two sheets are stamp papers and the remaining two papers on white paper. He further deposed that stamp papers show that they were purchased on 12.9.1986 but his evidence is that Ex.B7 was typed. However it is elicited from him that the date is mentioned in ink.

His evidence further goes to show that the stamp papers were purchased in advance initially a draft was prepared. He further deposed that he was not present at the time of preparing draft. But his evidence goes to show that the contents were read over to the executants in his presence and then he signed.

It is to be noted that the another attestor to Ex.B7 is none other than the father of the plaintif and defendants 1 to 10 and is no more. Therefore by examining DW2 there is a sufficient compliance of Section 63 of Indian

Evidence Act and Section 68 of Indian Succession Act. The plaintif,

DW2 and DW3 are cross examined as to discrepancy in the name of the mother of the plaintif and the defendants. Exs.A28 and A29 her name is mentioned as Venkata Manoharamma whereas Ex.B7 mentioned as

Venkatravamma. It is suggested to PW1 by DW3 her mother name is

Venkataravamma but not Venkata Manoharamma. But it may be noted that all 26 the parties categorically deposed that including the 5th defendant, DW1, DW3 she was called at Venkataravamma and Venkata Mahoharamma.

xv)Under Ex.B7 the mother of the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10 bequeathed the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property which is shown as A schedule and also all the amounts in her bank account N.S.S., fixed deposits under B schedule are bequeathed to her youngest son Nimmagadda Bhanu

Prasad (7th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 and the plaintif in OS.No.691/1996 and the 4th defendant in OS.No.466/1999) under C schedule i.e. gold, diamonds etc. bequeathed to her 4th daughter.

xvi)It may be a fact that there is no reference to other sons and also as to another son Syam Prasad leaving the house in Ex.B7 will. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7, the evidence of

DW3 i.e. 6th defendant goes to show that the 7th defendant is not settled and his evidence goes to show he completed B.Tech in the year 1986 that means by the time of execution of will he was pursuing studies, whereas he (DW3) completed his graduation in 1968 and since then he started his work as income tax practitioner besides he has petrol bunk and other business and his wife is also lecturer in Mary Stella College. The evidence of DW1 during cross examination by the 5th defendant (DW8) also goes to show by then all are doing their respective business. The 7th defendant is youngest of all of them and he alone was not settled in life by then. Therefore as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7 there is no suspicious 27 circumstances or improbability in bequeathing to the 7th defendant under

Ex.B7. Moreover she gave all her jewelry to her 4 daughters. The evidence of

DW2 and DW3 is corroborative that after the death of their mother on the 11th day their father disclosed about Ex.B7 will executed by their mother and moreover as per bequeath the C schedule properties were distributed among their 4 daughters. Ofcourse PW1 denied the said fact. Therefore, the 7th defendant examined the 9th defendant as DW6. By way of her affidavit she deposed that in June, 1987 when she had been to Vijayawada to her parents house in connection with the delivery of her 2nd issue who was born on July, 1987 her mother informed and showed the will, dated 10.12.1986 executed by her in the presence of her father. She further categorically deposed that in the said will she described the various items of jewelry totaling to 60 Sovereigns and also categorically deposed which item was given to the plaintif, herself and defendants 8 and 10. This evidence corroborates the evidence of DW2 and DW3. In the cross examination the will was showed to her about one month prior to her delivery. She deposed that on the 11th day after the death of her mother at about 3.30 P.M. the property was distributed among her sisters. She further deposed that as the 7th defendant is not at settled by then he bequeathed the house property to him. Her evidence in the cross examination by the plaintif further goes to show after gave amount to her and with the same he purchased the property at Vijayawada subsequent to marriage. Ofcourse PW1 though cross examined by the defendants 6 and 7 on 28 the lines her father purchased a site in her name and gave amounts to construct house she denied the same. But she gave evasive reply that she does not know her father purchased sites and got constructed houses for her sisters. It has to be observed that DW8 is none other than own sister of the defendants 7, 8 and 10. Had the mother has not shown the will and she has not received the gold items of her mother as deposed by her there is no reason for her to depose falsehood. It is suggested to her that the 7th defendant promised to give Rs.50,000/- to her to purchase the gold chain and ofcourse the same is not denied. But I do not find any probability in the said suggestion because had the 7th defendant simply promised to give Rs.50,000/- she depose falsehood because if the plaint schedule property is partitioned her share will be much more high. Therefore, the evidence of DW8 is also probablising the evidence of DW2 as to execution of Ex.B7 will.

xvii)It may be further noted that had they have not executed Ex.B7 will, there is no reason for the defendants 1 and 6 (DW1 and DW2) to admit the will who are none other than own brothers of the plaintif and 7th defendant because in the absence of such will they will also got share in item

No.1 of the plaint schedule property. It has to be seen that even the plaintif pleaded that their mother was in possession of her property till her death i.e.

3.10.1989 and he categorically deposed that from 3.10.1989 the 1st defendant is enjoying the property by collecting the rents from the tenants. This also probablises the will in acted upon.

29 xiii)It may be noted that though the defendants 6 and 7 contended by referring to Exs.B26 to B46 property tax receipts are in the name of

Venkataravamma and not in the name of Bhanu Prasad. But they are not much helpful to say they are pertain to item No.1 of the plaint schedule property as they do not bear door number and they bear only assessment number and assessment number is not mentioned in the plaint schedule. However as already stated even according to the plaintif from 3.10.1989 the 7th defendant is collecting the rents of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property i.e. since the death of their mother.

xix)In the light of my forgoing discussion this issue is answered affirmatively.

26)ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.2, dt. 8.6.2005 IN OS.NO.95/1995:-

2) Whether the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property was gifted to Smt.Nimmagadda Syamala Devi in 1982?

i)The plaintif categorically pleaded Syam Prasad left the house and since 1970 his whereabouts not known to anybody. Though the 1st defendant pleaded in his written statement as well as in the plaint in OS.No.466/99 that

Syam Prasad used to visit now and then his petrol bunk at Tadepalli but he also pleaded that he does not know his whereabouts since a long time and his address is also not available to anyone. The version of the 1st defendant that now and then he used to visit his (1st defendant) petrol bunk at Tadepalli the same is not substantiate because his chief affidavit is eschewed. In the cross examination which is held on 24.7.2003 he categorically stated his where 30 abouts’ are not known from 1970. His evidence is about 15 years back i.e. 15 years prior to 2003. DW2, DW3, DW5 as well as DW3 also admitted that since 1970 Syam Prasad where abouts are not known. In Ex.B47, dated 7.8.1993 the will executed by the father of the plaintif, defendants 1 to 10 also it is categorically recited by the father of the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10,

Syam Prasad left the house as bachelor on 10.10.1970. Therefore, it is an admitted fact that the where abouts of Syam Prasad are not known to the plaintif or defendants 1 to 10 or any of the relatives since more than 7 years prior to filing the suit. Under Section 108 of Indian Evidence Act, ifit is proved that a person has not heard by his who has naturally heard of him he had been not live, a presumption arises that he is not alive. When it is nobody’s case that Syam Prasad was alive. Hence this issue is answered affirmatively.

27)ISSUE Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 in OS.NO.691/96 AND ADDL. ISSUE No.1:

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover Rs.36,000/- being arrears of rent from November, 1995 to October, 1996?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled to evict the defendant from suit property?

4)Whether the suit property was gifted to Syamala Devi, W/o. Respondent in 1982?

5)Whether the quit notice is valid?

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to seek eviction of defendants from the schedule property?

For the sake of brevity and convenience in order to avoid repetition as the evidence that is to be appreciated is common, these issues are answered together.

31

i)The plaintif who is 7th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 as DW5 in his affidavit filed in lieu of his chief examination reiterated his version and deposed the 5th defendant started living in plaint schedule property (item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/95) with the permission of their father. After his death by virtue of will Ex.A4, dated 7.3.1990 he became the absolute owner of the same, therefore when he demanded the 5th defendant to vacate the premises he requested to continue as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.3000/-, accordingly paid rents upto October, 1995 and from November, 1995 onwards he committed default. Thereupon he issued Ex.A1 quit notice on 9.8.1996 terminating the tenancy by the end of 31.8.1996, but even thereafter he did not vacate the premises and he got it returned under Ex.A2. But in the cross examination he categorically deposed that there is no documentary evidence to show the defendant (the 5th defendant herein) paid the rents.

ii) The learned counsel for the plaintif in OS.No.691/1996 tried to impress upon the court that the defendants 19 and 20 did not come into witness box to prove their respective versions. Hence their version cannot be taken into consideration. It is admitted by DW8 that there is no document to show

Rs.40,000/- was given to his wife in lieu of Pasupukumkuma by her parents, that the said amount was entrusted to his father and the said house was given to their daughter (19th defendant). It is rightly contended by him that though the defendants 5, 19 and 20 pleaded, the said property was given in the presence of elders, relatives and friends but none of them were examined.

32

Their version is vague. The names of the relatives and friends are not mentioned. Moreover as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 7th defendant (Plaintif in OS.No.691/1996) as per Section 122 of Transfer of

Property Act gif of immovable property must be made voluntarily and without consideration. Moreover Section 123 of Transfer of Property Act postulates that for the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be efected by a registered instrument and attested by atleast two attestros. But in this case there is no such registered document. As such the defendants in

OS.No.691/1996 failed to prove their version. At the same time it cannot be

ignored that except the vague suggestion, the plaintif (7th defendant in

OS.No.95/95) also failed to prove landlord and tenant relationship.

iii)The learned counsel urged that even in the absence of proof of landlord and tenant relationship, the 7th defendant is entitled to claim item

No.2 as the absolute owner thereof and in pursuance of the answer to the issues in OS.No.95/95 he is entitled to claim delivery of possession of the same as held by the apex court by order dated 17.6.2005 passed in

C.R.P.No.2962/2004. When once the case of the defendants 5, 19 and 20 that item No.2 was given to the 20th defendant is false and untenable under law, the contention of the 7th defendant is to be accepted. The 7th defendant got issued Ex.A1 quit notice, which is marked in OS.No.691/1996 terminating the tenancy to the correct address which the 5th defendant (in OS.No.95/1995) got it returned with false postal endorsement. Hence notice is valid and there is 33 no proof of arrears of rents from November, 1996. Hence the plaintif in

OS.No.691/96 is entitled for the relief. But I am unable to find force in the

contention of the learned counsel for the plaintif in OS.No.691/96 simply because the defendant failed to prove his case that he is residing in the property as a owner when the plaintif (7th defendant in OS.No.95/1995) himself pleaded even during life time of his father, the defendant (5th defendant in OS.No.95/1995) is in possession of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property with permission it is for the plaintif (7th defendant) to prove the landlord and tenant relationship to get decree in OS.No.691/1996, if the plaintif (7th defendant in OS.No.95/95) failed to prove the landlord and tenant relationship, his remedy for eviction is not by virtue of Ex.A1 quit notice but the remedy is otherwise.

iv)It may be noted that admittedly the 7th defendant (Plaintif in

OS.No.691/1996) is an income tax assesses. As could be seen from the

contents in Ex.B22 to B25 which are income tax assessment orders show his mother showed the income from the rents from her property in her income tax returns. Had really the 7th defendant let out the property to the 5th defendant as a tenant and he paid the rents till October, 1995, the income tax returns of the 7th defendant for the said period certainly discloses the same. But the 7th defendant/plaintif did not choose to file any such document to prove his contention that there is landlord and tenant relationship between himself and the 5th defendant. Therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn Under 34

Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act. When the landlord and tenant relationship is not proved, the validity of Ex.A1 notice (in OS.No.691/1996) does not arise.

Hence these issues are answered negatively.

28)ISSUE NOS. 2, 3, 4, ADDL. ISSUES 1 AND 2 AND ISSUE NO.3 IN

OS.No.691/96 and ISSUE NO.1 IN OS NO.466/99 and ADDL. ISSUES

Nos. 1 and 3:

2)Whether the item Nos. 2 to 5 of the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Late Venkata Krishna Rao?

3)Whether the Will, dated 7.3.1990 in favour of D7 is true, valid and binding on the plaintif?

4)Whether the item Nos. 4 and 5 are the self acquired properties of D1, D2, D5 to D7?

1)Whether the item No.6 of the plaint schedule property is also joint family property under control and possession of D6 or not?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled to claim any share in the item No.6 of the plaint schedule property or not?

3)Whether the will dated 7-3-90 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to the partition of item nos.1 and 2 of the schedule properties as prayed for?

2)Whether the 7th defendant is liable to render accounts as prayed for?

On 2-7-2003 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders in

IA.No.2210/2002 after impleading the 10th defendant, dated 2.7.2003.

1)Whether the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property in nature?

2)Whether D5 is no more under law?

3)Whether the plaintif is entitled to a share in the plaint schedule property?

On 29-3-2012 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders in

IA.No.2210/2002 after impleading the 10th defendant, dated 2.7.2003.

35

1)Whether the defendants 10 and 11 have got any right and entitled to claim any share in the plaint schedule properties?

2)Whether the defendants 10 and 11 are necessary and proper parties to the suit?

For the sake of brevity and convenience in order to avoid repetition as the evidence that is to be appreciated is common, these issues are answered together.

i)The plaintif as PW1 reiterated her version in respect of items 2 to 6 of plaint schedule properties also. Similarly the defendants 5 to 7 deposed on the lines of their respective version as DW2, DW3 and DW8. In Ex.A1 legal notice, dated 23.2.1993 originally she claimed share in respect of item Nos. 1 to 5 contending that they are the own properties of their father Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, improved by him but treated as joint.

Again she issued Ex.A11 modification notice to delete the said version and to substitute that the property left behind by Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna

Rao is not his property but own ancestral in nature and with ancestral nucleus he acquired and improved them. According to the 5th defendant item Nos. 2 and 3 are absolute properties of his father but treated as joint. Whereas the version of 3rd defendant is also that they are ancestral properties being purchased with ancestral nucleus. But according to the defendants 6 and 7 that they are the absolute properties of their father. Though the plaintif contended while issuing Ex.A11 modification notice as if the earlier version is typographical mistake describing the nature of the property cannot be treated as a typographical mistake but certainly it shows she improvised her case.

36 ii)The plaintif in order to substantiate her version that there is a ancestral property got marked Exs.A26 and A27 sale deeds (DW8 also filed copies of the same documents which are marked as Exs.B93 and 95). Ex.A26 is the sale deed, dated 4.1.1952 in favour of 3rd parties for an extent Ac.1.92 cents land at their native village at Dokiparru executed by Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao and the defendants 1 to 5 who are undivided sons.

iii)As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7 the recitals in the documents goes to show the property covered under the said property is purchased by executant by late Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao who is the father of the plaintif and the defendants 1 to 10 on 22.1.1948. Ex.A27 dated 22.3.1964 executed by late Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao in favour of the 3rd parties. The recitals in the said document clearly shows that part of the property covered under the document is acquired by the vendor. By virtue of patta, dated 18.4.1928 issued by

Deputy Thasilar, Pamarru and the remaining extent purchased by him on 20.4.1946 from one Adusumilli Nageswara Rao under registered sale deed.

Therefore, Exs.A26 and A27 do not probablises that there were any ancestral nucleus and the said documents in fact show the said property was absolute property of the father of the plaintif and the defendants 1 to 10. During her cross examination by the defendants 6 and 7 PW1 categorically stated her father was the original owner of the property covered under Exs.A26 and A27.

37 iv)Though the 3rd defendant contended the plaint schedule properties were purchased with ancestral nucleus and cross examined the plaintif, DW1 and DW2, he did not choose to come into witness box to depose on oath as to his version and make himself available for cross-examination. Therefore, the said version cannot be taken into consideration.

v)The 1st defendant is eldest son his evidence goes to show he was born in 1934. His evidence during the cross examination of PW1 goes to show in 1937 itself their father shifted to Vijayawada and worked as a clerk and in or about 1941 or 1942 he started business. The evidence of 5th defendant as

DW8 goes to show his father started business and subsequently he started joining the sons as partners. Though he stated in or about 1960 or 1961 partnership among defendants 1 and 2 and their father started but he categorically deposed that he does not know when they were made as partners. The 3rd defendant did not come into witness box. Therefore his version that the property is the ancestral property cannot be taken into consideration. In fact, DW1 during the cross examination of DW6 and DW7 categorically testified that their father is the absolute owner of the property covered under Exs.A26 and A27. As such there is no probable evidence to show there is any ancestral nucleus.

vi)The evidence of DW8 in the cross examination of the defendants 6 and 7 goes to show that his father has Ac.2.00 land in Dokiparru village. It may be the property covered under Ex.A26 and he categorically deposed that 38 the amount derived from the said land is not sufficient to meet the expenses of family hence his father used to borrow the amount. Therefore, his father started business.

vii)Though the defendants 6 and 7 deposed that in 1967 there was family settlement but it is not supported by any documentary evidence.

However, DW1, DW2, DW3 and DW8 also stated in 1960 or 1961 the 1st defendant started the business. In fact the evidence of DW1 and DW8 goes to show in or about 1984 one petrol bunk Radha Krishna Service station was exclusively given to the 1st defendant and the other sons relinquished their rights. DW2 also admitted the said fact. DW1 testified he divided from his father in 1961. The evidence elicited from the cross examination of PW1, DW1 to DW8 goes to show there are other businesses, partnership business by name N.V.K.R. Agencies, Manohar Krishna Service station which is now come to the 6th defendant and N.V.K.R. Advertising agency. All these are admittedly partnership firms. Exs.B66 to B69 are the income tax assessment orders for 1982-1983 to 1985-1986 of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. All the assessments order the status of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao is shown individually and he showed the property and income from N.V.K.R.

Agencies and the income from item Nos. 2 and 3 also in his individual capacity.

It is not the case of the plaintif, the defendants 3 or 5 that at any time Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao submitted his income tax returns in the capacity of kartha of joint family. He always paid income tax in his individual 39 capacity showing the income from partnership business as a partner itself shows that no property was treated as joint family property.

viii)There is no dispute that the sale deeds pertaining to item Nos. 2 and 3 stands in the name of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B15 is the original sale deed pertaining to item No.3 which is in his name and

Ex.B66 to B69 assessment orders further corroborated the same. In order to prove Ex.B47 will, dated 7.3.1990 said to be executed by their father for his properties DW4, DW5 and DW7 are examined.

ix)DW4 is the son of the scribe (who drafted) is examined to identify the signature of his father Allanki Venkata Ramana on Ex.B47 will. Ex.B49 is the death certificate of Allanki Venkata Ramana, dated 22.5.1991. During his cross examination the plaintif got marked Ex.A22 and Ex.A23. Ex.A22 is the signature of the scribe to Ex.B47 Will on the Xerox copy of deposition of the scribe as DW8 in another matter. Ex.A23 is the signature of the scribe on the

Xerox copy of the will in dispute. It is elicited from him that in Ex.A22 his father signed as Allanki Venkataramana Vralu and in Ex.A23 the signature is as

Allanki Venkata Ramana. But he categorically stated that he used to sign in both ways sometimes as Allanki Venkataramana and sometimes as Allanki

Venkata Ramana Vralu. Exs.A22 and A23 did not disclose any diference except on additional word “Vralu” under Ex.A22. As could be seen from the description of the deposition DW8 is an Advocate as such he has no reason to speak false hood had Ex.B47 does not contain the signature of his father.

40

x)DW5 Tejomurtula Narasimha Murthy is an identifying witness at the time of registration of Ex.B47 will. He deposed that on 7.3.1990 when

Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao presented his will for registration

before Sub Registrar Office, Gandhinagar he was present. He categorically

deposed that before the Sub Registrar Office, the testator Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao admitted that he executed the said will and put his signature. Then he signed before Sub Registrar Office, as identifying witness along with other witnesses. He further testified that the Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao put his signature as well as thumb impression on the said will before the Sub Registrar. During cross examination the counsel for the plaintif obtained his specimen handwriting and got it marked as Ex.A25. But it is no way helpful and material. Though his specimen writing Ex.A24 when compared with his signature on Ex.B47 there are some minor variations found between the two, but it cannot be ignored that Ex.B47 is dated 7.3.1999 and

Ex.B23 is obtained on 10.11.2003. Thus there is a gap of 13 years, it is well known that the signatures and handwritings keep on changing in the course of time. It is further elicited from him that one of the attestor to Ex.B47 is his typist P.M.Sarma. He further testified that his full name is Markendaya Sarma but he does not know his complete surname. As could be seen from him initially the signature of the 2nd attestor on the photocopy of the will is marked as Ex.A25 but immediately the preceeding officer made a note that the counsel for the plaintif pleaded the last page of the photo stat copy of will and 41 asked the witness to identify whether the particular signature written in pen on the said Photostat copy is that of P.M.Sarma, who is the typist of the witness, but as it was recently written with a pen on the Photostat copy of the will, the question is rejected. Therefore, Ex.A25 cannot be considered. Ex.B48 the death certificate of 2nd attestor Markendaya Sarma shown he died on 22.5.1991.

xi)DW7 Nandigam Nageswara Rao is examined as 1st attestor to

Ex.B47. His evidence goes to show that he got acquaintance with Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao through the 6th defendant. He deposed that one day prior to his execution of Ex.B47 will Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao wanted him to come to the Sub Registrar Office, Gandhinagar, to attest the will, which he intend to execute on the following day. Accordingly he went there they all met in the office of the document writer

A.Venkataramana which is situated opposite to Sub Registrar’s office. It is his evidence is that Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao gave instructions to the scribe Venkata Ramana to prepare the draft and after preparing the draft he wanted him to get it typed and when the scribe got it typed and read over, then Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao also read it and satisfied then put his signature on the will in their presence. Then he wanted himself and another who are already there to attest the same and both of them attested in his presence. The testator wanted the scribe to sign, then the scribe wanted 42 to put his signature. Thus the evidence of DW7 proves the execution of Will in accordance with Section 63 of Indian Succession Act.

xii)It is elicited from DW7 he worked as an accountant in a firm

Srivenkateswara Engineering Contract and he knows the family of Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao through the 6th defendant. His evidence goes to show that as an accountant he used to attend the office of Brahmaiah and company. He denied the suggestion given by the counsel for the 5th defendant that the 6th defendant brought a drafted document to him and asked him to sign in the document as an attestor and at his request he signed on it. Ofcourse during the cross examination of plaintif he stated that he does not know the total members of the family. But it is an admitted fact that the 6th defendant is an income tax practitioner and he was working in the

Brahmaiah and Company which is a chartered accountant firm. Therefore, there is no improbability in DW7 knowing the 6th defendant and the testator.

There is no reason for DW7 to speak falsehood. Though DW4, DW5 and DW7 are subjected to cross examination nothing worth was elicited to shatter their evidence. DW1, DW2 and DW6 are not benefices under the wills. In fact,

DW6 will get share in item Nos. 1 to 3 had her parents died intestate.

Therefore, there is no reason for her to support the wills which benefits the 7th defendant. Thus by unshattered evidence of DW7 who is an attestor to

Ex.B47, the defendants 6 and 7 proved that late Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao executed Ex.B47 will in a sound and disposing state of mind. The 43 evidence of PW1 goes to show her mother and father died all of sudden due to heart problem, prior to that they are hale and healthy. Therefore, it proves that

Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao executed the will in a sound and disposing state of mind. Under Ex.B47 will he bequeathed item Nos. 2 and 3 of the plaint schedule properties and also undivided 1/5th share in item No.6 to the 7th defendant. It is recited in the will that he is a freedom fighter and thus getting pension from the Government. He further recited that he did business of Khadi along with his sons, later on 31.9.1961 they divided the said business and got it assessed in income tax department, since then himself and his sons are doing their respective business and looking after their respective properties, therefore whatever the properties are acquired are his self acquired properties. He also recited as to his another son Syam Prasad leaving the house on 10.10.1970, that he performed the marriage of all the daughters by giving all lanchanams and all the sons and daughters are well settled but the 7th defendant is financially not much sound when compared to other sons and all other sons are financially well settled. Even the fact elicited from the defendants 1 and 2 and DW1 to DW3 goes to show by 7.3.1990, the defendants 1, 6, and 5 are already well settled in their respective business.

DW1 categorically deposed that during the cross examination in 1984 other partners i.e. other brothers relinquished their share in Radha Krishna service station to him. The evidence of DW2 goes to show he is an income tax practitioner from 1969. Apart from that he has also business and he has 44 petrol bunk, Manohar Krishna service station. It is also admitted fact that the defendants 2 and 5 have also got business. The evidence of DW3 goes to show that he completed his graduation in Engineering in 1988. Therefore by the date of execution of Ex.B47 it is only the 7th defendant who was not financially well settled when compared to other children. Therefore, there is no probability or suspicious circumstances in execution of Ex.B47 will. While answering the issue No.1 in OS.No.95/95 as already stated though PW1 denied that her father gave landed property and also financially helped for construction of the house, DW6 who is the 9th defendant categorically admitted that her father gave land and also financially supported for construction of house. This evidence of DW6 fortifies the recital in Ex.47 will.

xiii)In respect of his movable properties the testator categorically mentioned he has one diamond ring, rubi and 6 soverigns of Gold chain and he bequeathed the said jewelry to the 7th defendant. In respect of cash lying to his credit in his banks and LIC he made arrangement that out of the said cash

Rs.1,00,000/- shall be kept for philanthropy. He further mentioned that his son

Syam Prasad has share in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property and in respect of 1/6th share of Syam Prasad he made an arrangement that his share of amount shall be used for the education of poor children. The validity of leaving aside the said clause at this juncture I would like to refer this clause to prove the genuineness of the will. He not only made arrangement for the 7th defendant, but also made arrangement for philanthropy works this shows the 45 genuineness of the will. So far as the 3rd defendant is concerned he did not choose to cross examine DW4 to DW8. Therefore, so far the 3rd defendant is concerned their evidence is remained unchallenged.

xiv)The foregoing discussion proves Ex.B47 Will is executed by Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in a sound and disposing state of mind and by virtue of Ex.B47 Will, the 7th defendant because the absolute owner of item

Nos. 2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties.

xv)Exs.B185 and 183 are the mutation endorsements, dated 20.9.1993 in respect of item Nos. 2 and 3 respectively also shows Ex.B47 will is acted upon.

xvi)Now coming to items 4 and 5 (item Nos. 1 and 2 in OS.No.499/96) of the plaint schedule properties Exs.B88 and B89 (the certified copies of said sale deeds are marked through DW1 as Exs.B1 and B2 and his chief examination eschewed are the sale deeds pertaining to the same. The evidence of DW1 to DW3 and DW8 supported by Ex.B88 shows it is purchased in the name of the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 and Syam Prasad and Ex.B89 shows item No.5 is purchased by the defendants 1 to 6. It is an admitted fact that by the time of both the sale deeds, the 7th defendant was minor and represented by his father.

xvii)The learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7 contended that one of the purchasers by name Syam Prasad of item No.4 of the plaint 46 schedule property was not known from 1970. But Ex.B88 is dated 12.10.1971.

However he tried to impress upon the court that it is purchased by the purchasers in their individual capacity out of their share of income from partnership firm Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao & Sons. However the defendants have not filed any partnership deed pertaining to Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao & Sons. But the recitals in Ex.B88 shows that the consideration is paid by way of cheques in the name of Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and sons. As already stated though the partnership deed is not filed it shows that the property is purchased for the benefit of the purchasers mentioned in the document but not as joint family.

As already stated Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao always used to file his returns in his individual capacity but not as Kartha of any joint family.

Moreover as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7, the 14th defendant who is the tenant of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property pleaded that they took lease from the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 from 1.4.1997 and rent is being deposited in the account of Babu Rajendra Prasad and brothers. That shows the property is purchased for the benefit of individuals but not for the benefit of joint family.

xviii) DW1 is cross examined that in 1993 he gave paper publication along with the 3rd defendant that their parents died intestate and similarly he also gave report against his father under Exs.B96, 98 and 99 and the private complaint filed by the 1st defendant against his father in OS.No.261/1999 47

Under Ex.B97 alleging that he is misappropriating the amounts collected from item No.4 of the plaint schedule property. It is elicited from DW2 in 1982 they gave power of attorney to their father to collect the rents for item Nos. 4 and 5 of the plaint schedule property. Had the properties are purchased as joint properties, the question of giving power of attorney to Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao does not arise as he will be kartha of joint family.

Moreover, this shows that the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 are joint owners of item

No.5 of the plaint schedule property.

xix)Be it noted that for item No.4 of the plaint schedule property,

Syam Prasad’s is a joint owner. But his whereabouts are not known from 1970.

Hence he is presumed to be died by 1977 and 1978. Ex.B47 as discussed supra late Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao made an arrangement with regard to the share of Syam Prasad in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property. But it is to be noted that Syam Prasad presumed to be died by the end 1977 or 1978 where as the mother of the plaintif died on 18.10.1988.

Therefore, Syam Prasad is presumed to be predeceased his mother.

Admittedly, he left the house as a bachelor. Therefore, the mother is only class-I heir of Syam Prasad. As such the property bequeathed to Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in respect of item No.4 for the share of

Syam Prasad is not valid. However under Ex.B7 the mother has not made any arrangement in respect of the share of Syam Prasad in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property, her 1/6th share will be devolved on the plaintif, the 48 defendants 1 to 10 and her husband Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao that means the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10 will get 1/72th share each.

The income of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property shall be given to the other joint owners i.e. the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 for maintenance of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property and to help the education of poor children.

Thus the defendants 1, 2, 5 and 10 each will get 1/6th share + 1/72th share i.e.

13/72th in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property. In item No.5 of the plaint schedule property, the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 will have 1/5th share.

xx)Coming to item No.6 of the plaint schedule property Exs.A30 and

A31 shows it is purchased by Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao i.e.

father of the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10 and one Subrahmanya Prasad,

S/o. the 2nd defendant. Being minors the 7th defendant is represented by his father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and Subrahmanya Prasad is represented by 2nd defendant. As already discussed supra, the properties are purchased for the benefit of individuals but not as joint. Therefore in item

No.6 also the plaintif as well as the defendants 2, 4, 8 to 10 will not have any share. As per Ex.B47 the share of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao devolved on DW3 i.e. 7th defendant. The 7th defendant deposed that himself,

Subrahmanya Prasad i.e. son of the 2nd defendant and 6th defendant gave the property to the 4th defendant and got marked the certified copies of gift deed, dated, 26.7.1993 which is marked as Ex.B188. Therefore, the learned counsel for the plaintif, the defendants 6 and 7 contends that the 5th defendant has 49 1/5th share in item No.6 of the plaint schedule property and remaining 4/5th share belongs to the 4th defendant. It may be noted that item No.6 is added subsequently and subsequent to adding of item No.6, the defendants 6 and 7 filed their additional written statement. But in the additional written statement they did not mention about Ex.B188. Therefore, whatever it be one of the joint owner by name Subrahmanya Prasad is not party to the suit. As stated the plaintif has no share in the said property. Under those circumstances I do not want to dwell into Ex.B188 gift deed.

29. ISSUE NO.2 IN OS.No.466/1999:

1)Whether the 2nd defendant is liable to render accounts as prayed for.

i)The plaintif who is his joint owner of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property extensively let in evidence to show as per the orders in interlocutory application filed by the 14th defendant in OS.No.1358/99, the keys pertaining to ground floor of item No.4 (item No.1 in OS.No.466/99) handed over to the 6th defendant. However DW8 (2nd defendant in this suit) admitted that he let out to Andhra Bank with consent of other brothers. He further testified that later he himself let out the same in 1997 or 1998 to the present tenant and collecting the rents. Therefore, he is liable to account the amounts collected by him to all the joint owners of item No.4 and 5 of the plaint schedule properties.

ii)In view of my forgoing discussion, this issue is answered affirmatively.

30)ISSUE No.5 in OS.No.95/1995:

50

5)Whether the 17th defendant is a necessary party to this suit?

i)Admittedly the 17th defendant is the tenant of item No.5 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/1995 (which is item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/99). As could be seen from the record the rents are credited by the 17th defendant in bank. It is pleaded by them due to disputes between the family members of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna

Rao, the defendant bank deposited the rents in the account of Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. In fact during the pendency of suit, the 17th defendant filed petition in IA.No.947/2006 in OS.No.466/99 they want to vacate the premises by the first of January, 2007. At the instance of the 3rd defendant. In IA.No.1/2007 an advocate receiver is appointed on 7.6.2007 to manage the item No.5 of the plaint schedule property and to take possession from the 17th defendant. In IA.No.947/2006 in OS.No.499/96 the court passed the orders, dated 20.6.2007 directing the 7th defendant to handover the keys to the receiver and receiver took possession of the item No.5 of the plaint schedule property from the 17th defendant all for tenders to lease out the same. But at the time the petitioner delivered the plaint schedule property, he found the building is exclusively damaged and directed the 17th defendant’s officials to get the damaged estimated, but they did not get the damages estimated under the back ground of these facts, the 17th defendant being a tenant and in possession of one of the item of plaint schedule property he is a proper and necessary party.

51 ii)Hence this issue is answered.

31)ISSUE NO.6 IN OS.No.95/95:

i)Whether the suit is property valued or not?

ii)Whether the plaintif is entitled to the partition of the property as prayed for?

i)In the light forgoing discussion and the answers to issue Nos. 1 to 4 and additional issue No.1, dated 8.6.2005 and additional issue Nos. 1 and 2,

dated 11.12.2006 I found that the plaintif is not entitled to any share in items

No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 of the plaint schedule properties. However, she is entitled to 1/72th share in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property.

31.ISSUE NOs.7 and 8 in OS.No.95/1995:-

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled for the mesne profits as claimed?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled for the future profits?

i)In view of the answers to issue No.6 the plaintif is entitled for mesne profits for her 1/72th share. However, mesne profits has to be ascertained by way of separate application Under Order XX Rule 12 C.P.C. in

Saint Mary’s Educational Society, Represented by its Secretary and

others Vs. Dr. Qutubuddin Ahmed and others, reported in 2007 (3)

ALT 214. Our Hon’ble High Courtheld that

the mesne profits to be ascertained on an

application made under the mandatory provision of Rule 12 of Order 20 of C.P.C., fixation of mesne profits straightaway by courts below without following the said mandatory procedure 52 is not legal. The damages as to be ascertained by way of separate application.

ii)Accordingly she is entitled for mesne profits and future profits till delivery of her share.

14.ADDL. ISSUE NO.3, DATED 13.12.2006 IN OS.NO.95/95:

Whether the suit is properly valued or not?

i)The contention of the defendant is that except in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property the plaintif is not entitled for any other items as they are not joint family properties the plaintif is not in possession of item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the plaint schedule properties but the plaintif paid only fixed court fee for the item Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6. But she ought to have paid the court fee Under Section 34 of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act. But it may be noted that none of the defendants has not specifically pleaded exactly when the plaintif was ousted. Moreover, the plaintif is having share in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property.

ii)Hence this issue is answered in favour of the plaintif.

32.ISSUE NO.9 IN OS 95/95, ISSUE NO.6 IN OS.NO.691/1996 AND

ISSUE NO.3 IN OS.NO.466/1999:

To what relief?

In view of the answer to issues discussed supra, the suit in

OS.No.466/1999 is preliminarily decreed and the suit is partly decreed

53 preliminarily in OS.No.95/95 allotting 1/72th share each to the plaintif, defendants 3, 4, 8 to 10 and 13/72th share each to the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property (item No.1 of plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/99) and the remaining 1/72th share belongs to the deceased Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in the 1/6th share of

Nimmagadda Syam Prasad shall be utilized for the purpose as per his bequeath under Ex.B47, dated 7.3.1990.

The plaintif is also entitled for mesne profits by way of separate application for her 1/72th share in the said item No.4 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/95 (item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in

OS.No.466/99).

Item No.5 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/95 (item No.2 of plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/99) shall be partitioned among the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 (the plaintif and the defendants 1 to 4 in

OS.No.466/99) and each of them shall get 1/5th share in the said item.

The rest of the claim of the plaintif in OS.No.95/95 is dismissed.

The suit in OS.No.691/1996 is also dismissed.

In the circumstances the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 7th day of March, 2017

VII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN O.S.NO.95/95

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PLAINTIFF: PW1 : Adusumilli Chinnamma PW2: Nimmagadda Sivaramakrishna Prasad

DEFENDANT: DW1: Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad 54

DW2: Nimmagadda Lalitha Prasad DW3: Nimmagadda Bhanu Prasad DW4: A.V.Ramana DW5: Tejomurthula Narasimha Murthy DW6: Smt.Potluri Lakshmikantha DW7: Nadigam Nageswara Rao DW8: Nimmagadda Rama Prasad

Documents marked on behalf of Plaintif

Ex.A1: Office copy of notice dated 23.02.1993 Ex.A2: Returned cover of D1. Ex.A3: Acknowledgement of D2. Ex.A4: Acknowledgement of D3 Ex.A5: Acknowledgement of D5 Ex.A6: Acknowledgement of D6 Ex.A7: Acknowledgement of D7 Ex.A8: Acknowledgement of D8 Ex.A9: Acknowledgement of D9 Ex.A10: Acknowledgement of D10 Ex.A11: Office copy of notice dated 06.03.1993 Ex.A12: Returned notice of D1 Ex.A13: Acknowledgement of D2 Ex.A14: Acknowledgement of D3 Ex.A15: Acknowledgement of D6 Ex.A16: Acknowledgement of D7 Ex.A17: Acknowledgement of D8 Ex.A18: Acknowledgement of D9 Ex.A19: Acknowledgement of D10 Ex.A20: Reply for Ex.A1 dated 16.03.1993 Ex.A21: Acknowledgement of D4 Ex.A22: Signature of Allanka Venkata Ramana of deposition in C.A. No.6673/2003 dated 14.10.2000(marked through DW4) Ex.A23: Signature of Allanka Venkata Ramana on the last page of Will (marked through DW4) Ex.A24: Specimen hand writing of T. Narasimha Murthy dated 10.11.2003 (marked through DW5) Ex.A25: Signature of P.M.Sarma as 2nd attestor in photostat copy of will (marked through DW5 on 10.11.2003) Ex.A26: Registration extract of sale deed dated 05.01.1952 executed by N.V.Krishna Rao and his minor sons for the property relating to Dokiparru village. Ex.A27: Registration extract of sale deed dated 23.03.1962 executed by N.V.Krishna Rao at Dokiparru. Ex.A28: Registration extract of sale deed dated 06.04.1965 executed by Venkata Rama Monoharam. Ex.A29: Registration extract of sale deed dated 06.04.1965 executed by Venkata Rama Manoharam. Ex.A30: Sale Deed executed by Kommineni Venkataratnam in favour of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and others(registration extract) 55

dated 07.07.1981.

Ex.A31: Sale deed executed by Nanapaneni Venkateswara Rao in favour of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and Others (registration extract)

dated 07.07.1981.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defendants

Ex.B1: Registration Extract of the Registered sale deed executed by Palaparti Purnanandam dated 12.10.1971. Ex.B2: Registration Extract of the Registered sale deed executed by Kasinaduni Sambasiva Rao dated 27.01.1978. Ex.B3: Market value certificate issued by S.R.O. VJA., for item No.5 dated 30.04.1999. Ex.B4: Marked value certificate issued by S.R.O., VJA., for item No.4 dated 29.04.1999. Ex.B5: Estimate issued by the Licensed Surveyor estimating the value of G.F.,F.F. and S.F. of item No.4 dated 25.08.1999. Ex.B6: Estimate issued by the Licensed Surveyor estimating the value of G.F., F.F. and S.F. of item no.5 dated 25.08.1999. Ex.B7: Will executed by Nimmagadda Venkatravamma dated 10.12.1986. Ex.B8: Registration Sale Deed executed by Smt. G.Savithri dated 22.09.1989. Ex.B9: Death Certificate of Smt. N.Venkatravamma dated 03.11.1989. Ex.B10: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B11: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B12: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B13: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B14: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B15: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B16: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B17: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B18: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B19: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B20: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B21: Income Tax Assessment Order of Smt. N.Venkatravamma for the Assessment year 1986-87 dated 14.10.1987. Ex.B22: Income Tax Assessment Order of Smt. N.Venkatravamma for the Assessment year 1987-88. Ex.B23: Income Tax Assessment Order of Smt. N.Venkatravamma for the assessment year 1988-89 dated 11.03.1991. Ex.B24: Income Tax Refund Order for the Assessment year 1989-90 of Smt. N.Venkatravamma dated 14.03.1991. Ex.B25: Income Tax Refund Order for the Assessment year 1990-91 of Smt. N.Venkatravamma dated 14.03.1991. Ex.B26: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B27: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B28: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma.

56

Ex.B29: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B30: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B31: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B32: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B33: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B34: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B35: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B36: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B37: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B38: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B39: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B40: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B41: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B42: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B43: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B44: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B45: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B46: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B47: Registered Will executed by Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 57 07.03.1990. Ex.B48: Death Certificate of P.Markandeya Sarma dated 25.07.2003. Ex.B49: Death Certificate of Allanki Venkataramana dated 08.02.2003. Ex.B50: Registered Sale Deed executed by Smt. Panuganti Tulasamma in favour of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 21.04.1964. Ex.B51: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B52: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B53: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B54: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B55: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B56: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B57: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B58: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B59: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B60: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B61: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B62: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B63: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B64: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B65: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B66: Income tax Assessment Order for the Assessment year 1982-1983 of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 01.06.1985. Ex.B67: Income Tax Assessment Order for the Assessment year 1983-84 of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 05.09.1986.

58

Ex.B68: Income Tax Assessment Order for the Assessment year 1984-85 of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 05.09.1986. Ex.B69: Income Tax Assessment Order for the Assessment year 1985-86 of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 05.09.1986. Ex.B70: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B71: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B72: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B73: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B74: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B75: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B76: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B77: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B78: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B79: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B80: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B81: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B82: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years 59 commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B83: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B84: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B85: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B86: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B87: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B88: Original of Ex.B1 Registered Sale Deed executed by Palaparti Purnanandam dated 12.10.1971. Ex.B89: Original of Ex.B2 Registered Sale Deed executed by Kasinaduni Sambasiva Rao dated 27.01.1978. Ex.B90: Certified copy of Plaint in O.S.No.1358/199 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil

Judge Court, Vijayawada. dated 16.06.1999.

Ex.B91: Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No.1358/1999 dated 12.07.2000. Ex.B92: Certified copy of Decree in O.S.No.1358/1999 on the file of I Addl. Junior

Civil Judge's Court, Vijayawada dated 12.07.2000.

Ex.B93: Registered Sale Deed executed by Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao

dated 04.01.1952.

Ex.B94: Registered Sale Deed executed by Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatrama Manoharam and Smt. Yerneni Lakshmi Narsamma dated 05.04.1965. Ex.B95: Registered Sale Deed executed by Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatrama Manoharam dated 05.04.1965. Ex.B96: News Paper publication given by D1 and D3 against D7 dated 04.09.1993. Ex.B97: Private Complaint filed by D1 against Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in C.C. No.276/1991 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada date 13.11.1990. Ex.B98: News paper publication got issued by D1 dated 28.05.1989. Ex.B99: News paper publication got issued by D1 Ex.B100: Letter written by D1, D2, D5, D6 and D7 dated 13.06.1995. Ex.B101: Distribution of responsibilities in the administration of properties of N.Babu Rajendra Prasad and Brothers among the co-owners enclosed to Ex.B100

dated 13.06.1995.

Ex.B102: Letter addressed by D1 to the Assistant General / Zonal Manager, Bank of 60

Baroda, Madras dated 06.06.1995. Ex.B103: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B104: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B105: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B106: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B107: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B108: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B109: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B110: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B111: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B112: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B113: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B114: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B115: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B116: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item 61

Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B117: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B118: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B119: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B120: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B121: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B122: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B123: Letter from D1 Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad to D14 Andhra Bank

dated 19.07.1995.

Ex.B124: Letter from D5 N.Rama Prasad to D14 Andhra Bank dated 21.05.1994. Ex.B125: Letter from D5 N.Rama Prasad to D14 Andhra Bank dated 08.07.1994. Ex.B126: legal notice got issued by D5 N. Rama Prasad to D14 Andhra Bank dated 15.08.1994. Ex.B127: Postal acknowledgement for Ex.B126 dated 17.08.1994. Ex.B128 Reply legal notice got issued by D14 Andhra Bank to Ex.B126 dated 27.08.1994. Ex.B129: Letter from N.Babu Rajendra Prasad and Brothers to D14 Andhra Bank

dated 25.10.1993.

Ex.B130: Letter addressed by D1 N.Babu Rajendra Prasad on behalf of N.Babu Rajendra Prasad & Brothers to D14 Andhra Bank. Ex.B131: Letter from D1 Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad on behalf of N.Babu Rajendra Prasad and Brothers to D14 Andhra Bank dated 01.06.1995. Ex.B132: Settlement Agreement dated 01.11.1982. Ex.B133: Death Certificate of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 03.10.1992, Ex.B134: Transfer of Ration Card in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad dated 19.05.1994. Ex.B135: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 62 to 1413. Ex.B136: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1392 to 1413. Ex.B137: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1393 to 1413. Ex.B138: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1394 to 1413. Ex.B139: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1395 to 1413. Ex.B140: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1396 to 1413. Ex.B141: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1397 to 1413. Ex.B142: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1398 to 1413. Ex.B143: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1399 to 1413. Ex.B144: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B145: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B146: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B147: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B148: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B149: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B150: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B151: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B152: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B153: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413.

63

Ex.B154: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B155: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B156: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B157: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B158: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B159: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B160: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B161: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B162: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B163: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B164: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B165: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B166: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B167: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B168: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B169: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B170: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B171: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413.

64

Ex.B172: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B173: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B174: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B175: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B176: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B177: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B178: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B179: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B180: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B181: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B182: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B183: Mutation endorsement issued by V.M.C. In respect of Assessment No.26414 dated 20.09.1993. Ex.B184: Mutation endorsement issued by V.M.C. In respect of Assessment No.26423 dated 27.09.1993. Ex.B185: Mutation Endorsement issued by V.M.C. In respect of Assessment No.26416 dated 06.10.1993. Ex.B186: Letter from Bill Collector, Ward No.28/2, to the Commissioner V.M.C.

Dated 07.10.1993.

Ex.B187: Pass Book of N.Venkatravamma for her S.B. Account No.2330 in Indian Bank, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada. Ex.B188: Registration extract of gift deed executed by D6 and D7 and Nimmagadda Subramanya Prasad in favour of Defendant No.4 along with typed copy. Ex.B189: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B190: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B191: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, 65

Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B192: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B193: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B194: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B195: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B196: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN O.S.NO.691/1996

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT: PW1: Bhanu PrasadNil Documents marked on behalf of Plaintif Ex.A1: 25.08.2004: Office copy of legal notice dated 09.08.1996. Ex.A2: 25.08.2004: Return R.P. cover Ex.A3: 25.08.2004: Sale deed dated 27.02.1965. Ex.A4: 25.08.2004: Certified copy of will dated 07.03.1990. Ex.A5: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 02.12.1983. Ex.A6: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 17.02.1984. Ex.A7: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 25.02.1985. Ex.A8: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 04.11.1985. Ex.A9: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 23.01.1986. Ex.A10: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 16.07.1986. Ex.A11:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 10.03.1987. Ex.A12:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 22.08.1987. Ex.A13:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 12.01.1988. Ex.A14:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 09.09.1988. Ex.A15:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 31.03.1989. Ex.A16:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 15.07.1989. Ex.A17:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 15.02.1990. Ex.A18:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 27.08.1990. Ex.A19:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 12.03.1991. Ex.A20:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 31.08.1991. Ex.A21:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 25.02.1992. Ex.A22: 25.08.2004: Endorsement certificate given by Municipal Corporation

dated 20.09.1993.

Ex.A23:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 25.06.1994. Ex.A24:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 19.09.1994. Ex.A25:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 29.03.1995. Ex.A26:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 01.11.1995. Ex.A27:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 14.05.1996. Ex.A28:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 30.09.1996. Ex.A29:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 26.02.1997. Ex.A30:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 15.11.1997. Ex.A31:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 06.11.1997. Ex.A32:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 01.02.1999.

66

Ex.A33:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 11.09.1999. Ex.A34:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 27.03.2000. Ex.A35:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 02.09.2000. Ex.A36:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 23.02.2001. Ex.A37:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 06.08.2001. Ex.A38:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 18.01.2002. Ex.A39:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 16.08.2002. Ex.A40:25.08.2004: Certificate of Architect dated 29.12.2003.

Documents marked on behalf of Defendant Nil

VII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: SMT. M.MADHURI,

VII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA.

FAC V ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,VIJAYAWADA.

TUESDAY THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017

O.S.NO.95/1995 , OS 691/1996 AND OS 466/1999

OS.NO.95/1995

Between:

Smt.Adusumilli Chinnamma… Plaintif

A N D

1) Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad

2) Nimmagadda Dhana Ratna Prasad

3) Nimmagadda Sivarama Prasad

4) Nimmagadda Udaya Bhaskara Durga Bhavani Prasad

5) Nimmagadda Rama Prasad

6) Nimmagadda Lalitha Prasad

7) Nimmagadda Bhanu Prasad

8) Smt.Kosaraju Durga Bhavani

9) Smt.Potluri Lakshmi Kantha

10) Smt.Potluri Jayalakshmi

11) Approach Computers, Rep. by its Managing Partner, R.Kumar Raja.

12) Potluri Krishna Murthy

13) C.R.Ravichandran

14) Andhra Bank, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Eluru Road.

15) A.P. Book Distributors.

16) The Hindu Paper Office

17) Bank of Baroda, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Vijayawada.

18) Nimmagadda Bala Bhaskara Krishna Prasad (18th defendant is added as per the orders Of High Court of Judicature, A.P., Hyderabad In CRP.No.4625/2001)

19) Nimmagadda Venkata Ramani (19th defendant is added as per the orders Of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.1542/2004,

Dated 15.3.2005)

20) Nimmagadda Syamala Devi (20th defendant is added as per the orders Of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.163/2005,

Dated 15.3.2005) … Defendants

OS.NO.691/1996

Between:

2

Nimmagadda Bhanu Prasad… Plaintif

A N D

1) Nimmagadda Ram Prasad

2) V.V.Ramani

3) N.Syamala Devi

4) Nimmagadda Siva Ram Prasad (4th defendant is added as per the orders of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.253/2007,

Dated 21.1.2008) … Defendants

OS.NO.466/1999

Between:

Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad… Plaintif

A N D

1) Nimmagadda Dhana Ratna Prasad

2) Nimmagadda Ram Prasad

3) Nimmagadda Lalitha Prasad

4) Nimmagadda Bhanu Prasad

5) Nimmagadda Shyam Prasad 6)Andhra Pradesh Book Distributors.

7) Swrnandhra Telugu Daily

8) Andhra Bank, Eluru Road.

9) Bank of Baroda, Musuem Road Branch, Vijayawada.

10) Smt.Adusumilli Chinnamma (10th defendant is added as per the orders of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.2210 /2003,

Dated 26.6.2003)

11) Nimmagadda Sivarama Prasad (11th defendant is added as per the orders Of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.254 /2007,

Dated 21.1.2008) … Defendants

These suits are coming on this day before me on in the presence of Sri M.Lakshman, Advocate for the plaintif, Sri S.Rajendra Prasad, Advocate for the 1st defendant, the defendants 3 and 5 are in person; Sri V.Veerasalingam, Advocate for the defendants 6 and 7; Sri K.Laxmi Pathi, Advocate for the 14th defendant; Sri D.T.Vyas, Advocate for the 17th defendant; Sri Ch.Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the 19th defendant, of Sri CH.G.R., Advocate for the 20TH defendant and the defendants 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18 remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

The suit in OS.No.95/1995 is comprehensive suit originally filed for partition of item Nos. 1 to 5 of the plaint schedule properties against the 3 defendants 1 to 17. Subsequently as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court under various IAs, the defendants 18 to 20 were added and item No.6 is also added to the plaint schedule properties.

2)The suit in OS.No.691/1996 is filed by the plaintif who is the 7th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 originally against the sole defendant i.e. the 5th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 for his eviction of the plaint schedule property (which is item No.2 of plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/1995) subsequently as per the orders in diferent IAs defendants 2 to 4 were added.

3)The suit in OS.No.466/1999 is filed for partition of the plaint schedule properties by the plaintif, who is the 1st defendant in OS.No.95/1995 originally against the defendants 1 to 9 who are some of the defendants in

OS.No.95/1995 and one Syam Prasad. Subsequently the defendants 10 and

11 are added as per the orders in diferent IAs.

4)For better appreciation I would like to refer the parties by way of table:

S.N OS.NO.95/19 OS.NO.691/19 OS.NO.466/19

Name of the Party

o 95 96 99

Smt.Adsumilli 1Plaintif -10th defendant Chinnamma NimmagaddaBabu 21st defendant-Plaintif Rajendra Prasad NimmagaddaDhana 32nd defendant - 1st defendant Ratna Prasad Nimmagadda 4 3rd defendant 4th defendant - Sivarama Prasad NimmagaddaUdaya 5BhaskaraDurga 4th defendant - - Bhavani Prasad Nimmagadda Rama 6 5th defendant1st defendant 2nd defendant Prasad Nimmagadda Lalitha 7 6th defendant - 3rd defendant Prasad NimmagaddaBhanu 8 7th defendantPlaintif 4th defendant Prasad 9Smt.Kosaraju Durga 8th defendant - - 4

Bhavani Smt.PotluriLakshmi 10 9th defendant - - Kantha 10th 11Smt.Potluri Jayalakshmi - - defendant Approach Computers, 11th 12Rep. by its Managing - - defendant Partner: R.Kumar Raja. 12th defendant 13Potluri Krishna Murthy - - 13th 14 C.R.Ravichandran - - defendant Andhra Bank, Rep. by 14th 15its Branch Manager, - 8th defendant defendant Manager, Eluru Road. 15th defendant 16A.P. Book Distributors. - 6th defendant 16th 17The Hindu Paper Office - - defendant Bank of Baroda, Rep. 18by its Branch Manager,17th defendant - 9th defendant Vijayawada NimmagaddaBala BhaskaraKrishna Prasad (18th defendant is added as per the18th 19 - - orders Hon’ble Highdefendant Court of Judicature, A.P. Hyderabadin

CRP.No.4625/2001)

Nimmagadda Venkata Ramani (19th defendant 20is added as per the19th defendant -- orders in IA.No.1542 / 2004 Nimmagadda Syamala Devi (20th defendant is added as per the 2120th defendant3rd defendant - ordersin

IA.No.163/2005, dated

15.3.2005. VallurupalliVenkata 22-2nd defendant- Ramani NimmagaddaSyam 23--5th defendant Prasad SwarnandhraTelugu 24--7th defendant Daily

5)Though there are some diferences with regard to the boundaries from item No.2 of plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/1995 and in OS.No.466/1999 it is claimed by all parties item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in 5

OS.No.95/1995 is the plaint schedule property in OS.No.691/1996. It is an

admitted fact that item Nos.4 and 5 of plaint schedule properties in

OS.No.95/1995 are item No.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties in

OS.No.466/1999.

6)As per the orders in IA.No.1263/2001, dated 22.7.2002 in

OS.No.95/1995, OS.No.466/1999 is clubbed, to record common evidence in

OS.No.95/1995. Subsequently as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in

CRP.No.5820/2005, 1071/2006 and 1072/2006 all the three suits i.e.

OS.No.95/1995, OS.No.691/1996 and OS.No.466/1999 are clubbed and

common evidence is recorded in comprehensive of suit in OS.No.95/1995.

7)The admitted facts of the case are the defendants 1 to 7 and one

Nimmagadda Syam Prasad who is the 5th defendant in OS.No.466/1999 are the sons and the plaintif, defendants 8 to 10 are the daughters of one Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and Venkataravamma. The 18th defendant is the son of the 3rd defendant, 20th defendant is wife and 19th defendant is the daughter of the 5th defendant in OS.No.95/1995.

8)The case of the plaintif (10th defendant in OS.No.466/09) is their mother died intestate on 3.10.1989 and she was the absolute owner of item No.1 of plaint schedule property having acquired the same with her own Sridhana property. Their father also died on 3.10.1992 and he was the owner of the item Nos. 2 to 6 of schedule property besides cash and other movables. After the death of their mother Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, her entire estate 6 devolved upon her husband i.e. their father, herself and the defendants 1 to 10 Under Hindu Succession Act and they got 1/12th share each and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the estate left by their mother

Venkataravamma. During her life time she let out the entire item No.1 of the plaint schedule building and she used to get the rent @Rs.6000/- per month.

From 3.10.1989 the 7th defendant has been collecting the rents. As on the date of filing of the suit the 7th defendant is liable to pay 1/12th share similarly he has also amounts S.B. Account in Syndicate Bank, Labbipet Branch,

Vijayawada in which also she has 1/12th share. She further pleaded items

Nos.2 to 6 are acquired by his father with ancestral nucleus and improved by him. Originally their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao got 8 sons i.e. defendants 1 to 7 and Syam Prasad and he left the house in the year 1970 without any information to his family till today or seen by him any of his kith and kin. As such she got 1/9th share and joint possession in the plaint schedule property. Therefore as he presumed to be died and his share devolved on their mother Venkataravamma. On the death of Venkatravamma, the share of her son Syam Prasad devolved upon her husband Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, herself and the defendant 1 to 10. As Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao has also got 1/108th share in the share of

Syamprasad and as such his share enlarged to 1/9th +10/108 herself and the defendants 1 to 10 got equal shares in the estate of Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao. Therefore, i.e. 1188/108 share. He further pleaded that 7 the amount of Rs.13,00,000/- is rent deposited by the Bank of Baroda (17th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 and 9th defendant in OS.No.466/99) and apart from the plaint schedule properties there are several joint family business concerns which are Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao News Agency,

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao & sons, Vijayawada, N.V.K.R. Advertising,

Vijayawada; Radha Krishna Service Station at Tadepalli, N.B.R. Prasad &

Brothers, Vijayawada and Monohar Krishna Service Station. The share of Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao devolved upon his daughters and sons equally. Though she demanded the defendants 1 to 10 to cooperate with her for partition and separate possession of the same they did not cooperate with her. On the other hand, the 7th defendant got issued a publication in Eenadu daily, dated 23.3.1993 to the efect that Venkatravamma has executed a will, on 10.12.1986 bequeathing her entire property in his favour which is not correct and it must be fabricated, concocted and forged one. Therefore, he got issued a notice, dated 23.2.1993 demanding the defendants 1 to10 to partition the same. Having received the same they did not issue any reply and kept quit. Again on 6.3.1993 he issued another notice as there are some typographical errors in the earlier notice, except the 1st defendant others acknowledged the same. The 7th defendant alone got issued reply notice on 17.3.1993 with all false allegations. The 11th defendant is tenant to item No.1, defendants 12 and 13 are the tenants of ground floor of item No.3, the 8 defendants 14 to 16 are the tenants in item No.4 and the 17th defendant is tenant in item No.4. Hence he filed the suit.

9)The version of the 1st defendant (plaintif in OS.No.466/99) is himself and the defendants 2,5,6,7 and Syamprasad purchased the item No.4 of the plaint schedule property (item No.1 in OS.No.466/99) under a registered sale deed,

dated 12.10.1971 for a valid consideration of Rs.55,000/- from one Palaparthi

Poornandam and others. Similarly himself and the defendants 2, 5, 6 and 7 (defendants 1 to 4 in OS.No.466/99) purchased the item No.5 (item No.2 in

OS.No.466/99) of the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed,

dated 31.1.1978 from Kasinadhuni Sambasivarao. Therefore, they are the joint

owners of the said property, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and they let out the item No.4 to the 14th defendant (8th defendant in

OS.No.466/99) and item No.5 is let out to the 17th defendant (9th defendant in

OS.No.466/99) The 5th defendant (2nd defendant in OS.No.466/99) has been

looking after the afairs of the building even without their consent since 6 years prior to the filing of the suit and also he let out the same without the consent of the other joint owners to some part of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property (Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/99) to the 15th defendant (6th defendant in OS.No.466.99) and 7th defendant in

OS.No.466/1999 and collecting the rents. He is also not rendering proper

accounts for the amounts collected by him and has been misappropriating the same for his own benefit. While so, in January, 1997 the 14th defendant (8th 9 defendant in OS.No.466/1999) vacated the premised in their occupation and kept the same under the lock. But they did not hand over the keys of the tenanted building. Subsequently they filed OS. No.1358/99 on the file of I

Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada for deposit of the keys. They used to credit the rents upto 31.12.1996 in the joint account of himself and other brothers i.e. the defendants 2, 5, 6 and 7 (defendants 2 to 4 in OS.No.466/99).

Similarly the 17th defendant (9th defendant in OS.No.466/1999) is in occupation of item No.5 of the plaint schedule property (item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/1999) since 1.4.1980 taking undue advantage of the situation did not even enhanced the rent from 7900/- as agreed by him. He has been depositing the rent to the credit of himself and other joint owners bearing Account No.3320 in 17thdefendant Bank (9th defendant in

OS.No.466/1999) and the amount is lying in the said account. Therefore he is

entitled for 1/6th share in the agreed rents in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property (item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/1999) as well

as 1/5th share in item No.5 of the plaint schedule property (item No.1 of the

plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/1999).

10)The 2nd defendant remained exparte.

11)The 3rd defendant (4th defendant in OS.No.699/96) filed written statement contending that their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao is native of Dokiparru village and from there he migrated to Machilipatnam and finally migrated to Vijayawada in or about 1937. Subsequently he started business with the income derived from the ancestral properties at Dokiparru 10 village of Krishna District. He being kartha of the joint family used to look after the same for and on behalf of the joint family. Thereafter, he disposed of the ancestral properties and with the said income he developed the business, with the income from the ancestral nucleus he developed the financial position of the family and acquired the properties i.e. item No.1 to 6 of the plaint schedule properties. He further pleaded that item No.1 of plaint schedule property is purchased by his father in the name of his wife Venkatravamma. In fact the name of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao i.e. mother of the plaintif and defendants 1 to 10 is Venkatrama Manoharam but not

Venkataravamma. It is nothing but Benami transaction. Therefore, though the said property was purchased in her name, the afairs of the said property were looked after by their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao being

Kartha of the joint family. Being coparceners, the defendants 1, 2, 4 to 7 and

Syam Prasad and their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao got each 1/9th share in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. However, the item

No.4 is purchased in the name of the defendants 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and Syam Prasad whose where abouts’ are not known even by the date of purchase of the said property and the item No.5 was purchased in the name of the defendants 1, 2,5, 6 and 7 by their father. Item No.6 of the plaint schedule property is purchased in the name of their father and in the names of the defendants 5, 6, 7 and Nimmaggadda Subrahmanya Prasad i.e. son of the 2nd defendant.

Hence item Nos.4 and 5 (item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property in 11

OS.No.466/99) also are joint family properties and he is being the coparcener

is having 1/9th share in the said two items also.

12)The 4th defendant remained exparte.

13)For the sake of convenience and understanding the version of the 7th defendant is mentioned before the version of the 5th defendant.

The written statement filed by 7th defendant (Plaintif in OS.No.691/1996 and the 4th defendant in OS.No.466/99) is adopted by the 6th defendant (3rd defendant in OS.No.466/99). He pleaded that their mother Venkatravamma was the absolute owner of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and she enjoyed the same, during her life time. On 10.12.1986 she executed a will in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing the said property and some other properties in his favour. The said will is within the knowledge of all her children including the plaintif and also her husband Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao. As per the said will after her death he took possession of the same and her other properties and has been enjoying the same. Item Nos.

2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties are the self acquired properties of their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and he never treated them as joint family properties. The said Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao has been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties till his death on 3.10.1992. Their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao executed a

Will on 7.3.1990 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing all his properties in his favour to the knowledge of the plaintif and his other children.

Therefore after the death of their father, he took the same and enjoying the 12 same. Similarly the item No.6 of the plaint schedule property was purchased by Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, Nimmagadda Subramanya Prasad i.e. the son of the 2nd defendant, defendants 5, 6 and 7 jointly. As such their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao has got 1/5th share in item No.6 of the plaint schedule property. Under the said Will, he bequeathed his 1/5th share in item No.6 of the plaint schedule property to the 4th defendant, as such the plaintif has no right in item No.6 of the plaint schedule property. He further pleaded that item No.4 of the plaint schedule property is self acquired property of the defendants 1, 2, 5, 6, himself and Syamprasad. The 1/6th joint share of Syam Prasad devolved on their mother Venkatravamma which is bequeathed to him. Hence, the plaintif has no share in the said item also. He denied the other allegations in the plaint as to her share in the plaint schedule property and also denied the version of the defendants 5, 19 and 20 in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property.

14)As the plaintif in OS.No.691/1996 in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property he pleaded at the request of the 5th defendant, who is the 1st defendant therein, has been residing in the property. Thus by the time of death of their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao the 1st defendant has been staying in the said item. After his death when he demanded him to vacate and deliver the property by virtue of the will executed by their father, he requested to allow him to continue in the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs.3000/- and continued in the possession as a tenant. The tenancy 13 commenced from month to month commencing from 1st day of calendar month. He paid the monthly rents regularly till October, 1995 and from

November, 1995 onwards he committed willful default in payment of monthly rents. As he wants to have the building for his own use, he issued a notice,

dated 9.8.1996 terminating the tenancy ending by 31.8.1996 but the 5th

defendant/1st defendant therein got it returned with false endorsement and he did not vacate the same. Therefore, he is entitled to evict him and also the defendants 2 and 3 therein (the defendants 19 and 20 in OS.No.95/95).

15)The 5th defendant (1st defendant in OS.No.691/1996 and 2nd defendant in

OS.No.466/1999) pleaded that item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is the

joint family property and it is acquired from out of joint family funds and kept in the name of their mother Late Smt.Nimmagadda Venkatravamma as benami. Item No.2 is no way connected to the joint family or to any of the parties and it is excluded from the plaint schedule property. Their family had business and though the properties of their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao are mostly self acquired, but all the properties are treated as joint family properties. Since he attained adult hood he had to enable his parents to bring up all the children in a manner befitting the status of the family.

Keeping in view of the troubles which his father was facing in order to bring up all the 12 children, he discontinued his education and plunged into the family business. Thus toiled hard to the extent possible. He married 20th defendant in 1968. At the time, as per their custom her parents gave a sum of 14

Rs.40,000/- in cash towards Pasupu Kumkuma in addition to certain other landed properties. The said amount of Rs.40,000/- was entrusted to their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, who utilized the same for joint family purpose and in consideration thereof he gave item No.2 of the plaint schedule property to the 20th defendant in the year 1982 itself in the presence of her parents, himself, other family members, relatives and friends of the family. Subsequently at the time of marriage of his daughter i.e., 19th defendant which was celebrated in the year 1992, the same was given to her towards her Pasupu Kumkuma. The will executed by Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao is not a valid and genuine, it is forged and fabricated and it is not executed in a sound and disposing state of mind. Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property belongs to the joint family properties and item Nos. 4 and 5 belong to himself, defendants 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7and as such the plaintif and other defendants are not entitled for any share therein. He further pleaded that he never collected any rents from the 13th defendant and it is the 1st defendant herein used to collect the rents from him. Except Radha Krishna

Service Station, Tadepalli and Vijayawada there are no other business as contended by the plaintif. There is no landlord and tenant relationship between himself and the 7th defendant (plaintif in OS.No.691/96), he never paid any rent to him much less Rs.3000/-. He is not entitled for any arrears of rent and the quit notice, dated 9-8-1996 issued by the 7th defendant is not valid under law. Hence the suit filed by the 7th defendant in OS.No.691/96 is 15 liable to be dismissed. He further pleaded that the 1st defendant (Plaintif in

OS.No.466/99) himself played an active role and got properties leased out to

the defendants 14, 15 and 17(the defendants 6, 8 and 9 in OS.No.466/99). He further pleaded that the 1st defendant (plaintif in OS.No.466/1999) got himself divided from the family properties though in fact he has to shoulder the responsibilities for the properties that remained joint. As per the arrangement arrived among them he is entitled to collect the rents from the 7th defendant in

OS.No.466/99 and can appropriate the same.

16)Though the 20th defendant filed written statement separately which is adopted by the 19th defendant (2nd defendant in OS.No.691/96) the same is on the lines of the written statement of the 5th defendant.

17)The defendants 8 to 13 remained exparte.

18)The 14th defendant (the 8th defendant in OS.No.466/1999) pleaded that their bank taken the ground floor of the building (item No.4 of the plaint schedule property) for its branch with efect from 1.4.1977 from the defendants 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 and it has been extended from time to time by mutual consent. While so on 25.11.1996 they sent notice to the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7, stating that tenancy is terminated with efect from 31.12.1996 and accordingly they vacated the premises on 31.12.1996 and called upon them to come to the said building for collecting the keys and take possession of the same. It was duly acknowledged by the defendants 1, 2, 6 and 7, but the notice sent to the 5th defendant is returned with an endorsement not claimed.

However, the 1st defendant authorized the defendants 6 and 7 by his letter, 16

dated 16.1.1997 jointly or individually to take possession of the premises. The

2nd and 6th defendants also gave authorization letters to the 7th defendant to take possession of the premises. Further the plaintif got issued a registered notice to him confirming the above facts for which he issued a suitable reply,

dated 24.7.1997 informing the plaintif that the authorization from the 5th

defendant is also required and in view of the conflicting versions, that all the authorization letters should be attested by notary public, but the 1st defendant has not given any such authority as required by them and they did not come jointly to receive the keys from him. On the other hand prior to 9.8.1996 the 7th defendant sent a registered notice to the defendants 1, 2, 5 and 6 and also other tenants for partition of the properties etc. and also directed not to deliver possession of the tenanted premises or handover keys of the tenanted premises to the 5th defendant. Hence on 24.7.1997 they sent a reply under those circumstances they were constrained to file Inter Pleader suit in

OS.No.1358/1999 on the file I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada. As

they already vacated the premises, there is no landlord and tenant relationship between them and deposited the rents before the court in the said suit. They also paid all the arrears of rent till 31.12.1996 in the current account No.2 of the Babu Rajendra Prasad and others as per the usual practice. The said suit was decreed and as per the directions of the court the keys were delivered to the 6th defendant.

19)The defendants 15, 16 and 18 remained exparte.

17

20)The 17th defendant (9th defendant in OS.No.466/99) pleaded that he has taken item No.5 of the plaint schedule property from Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao on lease. After his death they are depositing the monthly rent in the account of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in view of the family disputes among the family members of late Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao. It is not necessary party to the suit. The plaintif has no cause of action against it and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.

21. Basing on the above pleadings, the then preceding officer settled the following issues for trial in OS.No.95/1995

1) Whether the deceased Venkataravamma was the absolute owner of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and if it is so, the will, dated 10.12.1986 is true, valid and binding on the plaintif?

2) Whether the items No.2 to 5 of the schedule are the ancestral properties of Late Venkata Krishna Rao?

3)Whether the Will, dated 7.3.1990 in favour of D7 is true, valid and binding on the plaintif?

4)Whether the item No.5 is the self acquired property of D1, D2, D5 to D7?

5) Whether the D17 is a necessary party to this suit?

6)Whether the plaintif is entitled to the partition of the property as prayed for?

7)Whether the plaintif is entitled for the mesne profits as claimed?

8)Whether the plaintif is entitled for the future profits?

9) To what relief?

On 8-6-05 Addl. Issue were framed as per the orders in IA.No.1542/2004 and IA.No.163/2005 after impleding the 19th and 20th defendants respectively.

1)Whether item no.2 of schedule property was gifted to Smt. Nimmagadda Syamala Devi in 1982?

18

On 13-12-2006 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders in

IA.No.983/2005 after amending the plaint.

1)Whether item no.6 is also joint family property under D6 entitled to possession or not?

2)Whether the plaintif is not entitled to claim any share in the joint 1/5th share of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in item No.6 of plaint schedule property or not?

3)Whether the suit is properly valued or not?

ii)The then preceding officer settled the following issues for trial in

OS.No.O.S.691/1996

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover Rs.36,000/- being arrears of rent from November, 1995 to October, 1996?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled to evict the defendant from suit property?

3)Whether the will dated 7-3-90 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

4)Whether the suit property was gifted to Syamala Devi, W/o. Respondent in 1982?

5)Whether the quit notice is valid?

6)To what relief?

On 8.6.2005 Addl. Issue was framed as per the orders in IA.No.1076 / 2004 and 1541/2004 after impleding the defendants 2 and 3 respectively

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to seek eviction of defendants from the schedule property?

iii) The then preceding officer settled the following issues for trial in

OS.No.O.S.466/99

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to the partition of item nos.1 and 2 of the schedule properties as prayed for?

2)Whether the 7th defendant is liable to render accounts as prayed for?

3)To what relief?

19

On 2-7-2003 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders in

IA.No.2210/2002 after impleading the 10th defendant.

1)Whether the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property in nature?

2)Whether D5 is no more under law?

3)Whether the plaintif is entitled to a share in the plaint schedule property?

On 29-3-2012 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders, in

IA.No.2210/2002 after impleading the 10th defendant.

1)Whether the defendants 10 and 11 have got any right and entitled to claim any share in the plaint schedule properties?

2)Whether the defendants 10 and 11 are necessary and proper parties to the suit?

22)During the course of trial, before clubbing with suit in OS.No.95/1995 on behalf of the plaintif, PW1 and PW2 are examined and Exs.A1 to A31 are marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 to DW8 are examined and Exs. B1 to B196 are marked in OS.No.95/1995.

23)During the course of trial, before clubbing with suit in O.S.No.95/1995 on behalf of the plaintif, PW1 is examined and Exs.A1 to A40 are marked in

OS.No.691/1996.

24Heard both sides and defendant 6 and 7 and 14th defendant filed written arguments also.

25.ISSUE No.1 (in OS.No.95/1995):

1) Whether the deceased Venkataravamma was the absolute owner of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and if it is so, the will, dated 10.12.1986 is true, valid and binding on the plaintif?

i)The version of the plaintif is their mother Venkatravamma was the original owner of the property of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property having acquired the same with her Sridhana and she died intestate leaving behind them.

20 ii)According to the plaintif, the defendants 6 and 7, item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is the absolute property of their mother

Venkataravamma. But according to the defendants 3 and 5 it is purchased by

Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in the name of his wife

Venkataravamma as benami. According to the 3rd defendant all the properties are acquired from the income derived by her landed property. Whereas according to the 5th defendant though the properties are self acquired properties of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao but they are treated as joint family properties.

iii)In order to shore up his contention by way of affidavit filed in lieu of his chief-examination while reiterating her version she got marked the

Exs.A1 to A31. In Ex.A1 notice, dated 23.2.1993 and she pleaded the same with regard to the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. During the cross examination by DW5, PW1 categorically stated that her mother purchased the item No.1 with the amount derived her by selling her landed property. As culled out from the evidence adduced by the parties and cross examination item No.1 of the plaint schedule property purchased by their mother

Venkataravamma under Ex.B8 sale deed, dated 22.9.1969. In order to shore up her contention that their mother got Stredhana property from the income from it she purchased the item No.1 the plaintif produced Exs.A28 and A29 (Exs.B94 and B95) sale deeds, dated 5.4.1965 executed by Venkataravamma and her sister. In fact Ex.B94 sale deed, dated 5.4.1965 is one of the sale deeds executed by their mother is produced by DW8 i.e. the 5th defendant himself. As could be seen from the recitals in Ex.B94 sale deed and the said document shows the said property is devolved on the mother of the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10 and her sister from their parents. It may be a fact that it is elicited during the cross examination of PW1 by the 3rd defendant that on the reverse of Ex.A8 postal acknowledgement there is an endorsement to the 21 efect that the consideration was paid by the husband of Venkataravamma.

But by itself it cannot be said that the property is purchased by Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao as Benami.

iv)On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7, contended Exs.B21 to B25, are the income tax assessment orders filed by

Late Venkataravamma from 1983 to 1991 she showed item No.1 as her property in her income tax returns and he also showed the rent from it in her income tax returns. This itself probablises the property was her absolute property. Moreover Ex.B25 was submitted by Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao on behalf of his wife, who died on 3.10.1989. In Ex.B25 there is a note that the assessee is died on 3.10.1989 therefore, the rental income ofered only upto September, 1989.

v)DW1 and DW2 [1st defendant and 6th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 and DW1 is plaintif and DW2 is the 3rd defendant in OS.No.466/99] deposed on the lines of their version by way of their respective affidavits filed in lieu of their chief examination.

vi)It may be a fact that it is elicited from Ex.B24 and B25 are the income refund orders for the assessment years 1989-1990 and 1990-1991,

dated 14.3.1991 do not bear the signatures of Venkataravamma, but it cannot

be ignored that it bears acknowledgment from the income tax officer.

Moreover Exs.B21 and B22 are the income tax assessment orders of

Smt.N.Venkatravamma for the assessment years 1986-1987 and 1987-1988 bears the signatures of Venkatramma. Therefore, the filing of the income tax returns by showing the income of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property as her separate property coupled with Exs,A24 and A25 and B8 proves Item No.1 22 of the plaint schedule property is absolute of property of the mother of the plaintif.

vii)Be it noted that the plaintif also examined PW2 and he is cross examined on behalf of the plaintif, but subsequently when he was recalled for the purpose of cross examination on behalf of the 3rd defendant as he did not turn up and the plaintif filed a memo stating that she could not secure him, therefore her chief examination affidavit is eschewed. But it will not throw away her evidence in her cross examination conducted by some of the contesting defendants. Since some facts are elicited during his cross examination. The then Preceding Officer while passing the orders on the docket she categorically mentioned ‘chief affidavit is only eschewed’ and not the entire evidence.

viii)The very fact that after demise of Venkataravamma her husband

Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao filed returns on her behalf itself probablises that the property never treated as joint family property. Therefore, this proves item No.1 of the property is the absolute property of their mother of the plaintif.

ix)At this juncture it is here pertinent to mention the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7 (7th defendant is the plaintif in

OS.No.691/1996 and 3rd and 4th defendants in OS.No.466/99) that PW2 in her

chief examination deposed that Venkataravamma possessed one property.

Therefore, the evidence of PW2 is also proves that the item No.1 of the plaint 23 schedule property is the absolute property. But the evidence of chief examination of PW2 is eschewed on 5.11.2015. Therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration.

x)The defendants 3 and 5 contended that the property was purchased by Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao as binami in the name of his wife. But Exs.A28 and A29 are the sale deed shows she has some

Sridhana property from her parents. It is an admitted fact that

Venkataravamma has only one sister and they have no brothers. As such it probablises the version of the plaintif, defendants 6 and 7 that the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property (item No.4 of the plaint schedule property in

OS.No.466/199) is the absolute property of Venkataravamma.

xi)Though the 5th defendant (1st defendant in OS.No.691/1996 and 2nd defendant in OS.No.466/1999) as DW8 deposed on the lines of his version but the same is not substantiated. DW2 categorically deposed that there are no

Binami transactions in the family. Moreover, as the defendants 3, 19 and 20 did not come into witness box to depose on oath as to their version and make themselves available for cross-examination, therefore, their version cannot be taken into consideration especially when the version of the plaintif is substantiated by Exs.A28 and A29 to show she has source of income to purchase the property.

xii) DW2 and DW3 who are the defendants 6 and 7 by way of their respective affidavits categorically deposed that LateNimmagadda 24

Venkataravamma executed will on 10.12.1986 in a sound and disposing state of mind. They got marked the said will as Ex.B7. It is here apposite to mention that Ex.B7 is marked through DW1 during his cross examination. DW1 was cross examined by the defendants 5, 6, 7 by the plaintif at length. But later he was not turned up subsequently the 3rd defendant filed IA.No.1/2015 for cross examination of PW1 and PW2 and DW1 to DW8, but DW1 was not turned up. As such his chief examination was eschewed. But when the 1st defendant cross examined at length by the rival parties as well as the plaintif apart from the defendants 6 and 7 the admissions elicited during the cross examination of DW1 cannot be eschewed that is why it seems the then Preceding officer consciously mentioned his chief affidavit is eschewed and it is not the entire evidence is eschewed. Therefore, his evidence in the cross examination as not eschewed can be taken into consideration. Ex.B7 is the Will, dated 10.12.1986 marked through DW1 cross examination and he admitted that the said will is executed by their mother.

xiii)DW2 who is the 6th defendant categorically deposed that himself and his father are the attestors to the said will Ex.B7 executed by their mother.

It may be a fact that the evidence of DW2 is not verbatim as annunciated in 63 of Indian Succession Act. In S.A.Quddus Vs. S.Veerappa, Reported

in AIR 1994 Karn. 20 it is observed that the law does not emphasis

that the witness must use the language of the Section to prove the

required merits thereof.

25 xiv)However he categorically deposed that himself and his father and mother were present at the time of execution of will. He further categorically deposed after the contents in Ex.B7 will, dated 10.12.1986 were read over only the executant signed on it and he was present at that time. He further categorically deposed that the will is executed by the executants at her house.

It is elicited from him that the 1st two sheets are stamp papers and the remaining two papers on white paper. He further deposed that stamp papers show that they were purchased on 12.9.1986 but his evidence is that Ex.B7 was typed. However it is elicited from him that the date is mentioned in ink.

His evidence further goes to show that the stamp papers were purchased in advance initially a draft was prepared. He further deposed that he was not present at the time of preparing draft. But his evidence goes to show that the contents were read over to the executants in his presence and then he signed.

It is to be noted that the another attestor to Ex.B7 is none other than the father of the plaintif and defendants 1 to 10 and is no more. Therefore by examining DW2 there is a sufficient compliance of Section 63 of Indian

Evidence Act and Section 68 of Indian Succession Act. The plaintif,

DW2 and DW3 are cross examined as to discrepancy in the name of the mother of the plaintif and the defendants. Exs.A28 and A29 her name is mentioned as Venkata Manoharamma whereas Ex.B7 mentioned as

Venkatravamma. It is suggested to PW1 by DW3 her mother name is

Venkataravamma but not Venkata Manoharamma. But it may be noted that all 26 the parties categorically deposed that including the 5th defendant, DW1, DW3 she was called at Venkataravamma and Venkata Mahoharamma.

xv)Under Ex.B7 the mother of the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10 bequeathed the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property which is shown as A schedule and also all the amounts in her bank account N.S.S., fixed deposits under B schedule are bequeathed to her youngest son Nimmagadda Bhanu

Prasad (7th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 and the plaintif in OS.No.691/1996 and the 4th defendant in OS.No.466/1999) under C schedule i.e. gold, diamonds etc. bequeathed to her 4th daughter.

xvi)It may be a fact that there is no reference to other sons and also as to another son Syam Prasad leaving the house in Ex.B7 will. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7, the evidence of

DW3 i.e. 6th defendant goes to show that the 7th defendant is not settled and his evidence goes to show he completed B.Tech in the year 1986 that means by the time of execution of will he was pursuing studies, whereas he (DW3) completed his graduation in 1968 and since then he started his work as income tax practitioner besides he has petrol bunk and other business and his wife is also lecturer in Mary Stella College. The evidence of DW1 during cross examination by the 5th defendant (DW8) also goes to show by then all are doing their respective business. The 7th defendant is youngest of all of them and he alone was not settled in life by then. Therefore as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7 there is no suspicious 27 circumstances or improbability in bequeathing to the 7th defendant under

Ex.B7. Moreover she gave all her jewelry to her 4 daughters. The evidence of

DW2 and DW3 is corroborative that after the death of their mother on the 11th day their father disclosed about Ex.B7 will executed by their mother and moreover as per bequeath the C schedule properties were distributed among their 4 daughters. Ofcourse PW1 denied the said fact. Therefore, the 7th defendant examined the 9th defendant as DW6. By way of her affidavit she deposed that in June, 1987 when she had been to Vijayawada to her parents house in connection with the delivery of her 2nd issue who was born on July, 1987 her mother informed and showed the will, dated 10.12.1986 executed by her in the presence of her father. She further categorically deposed that in the said will she described the various items of jewelry totaling to 60 Sovereigns and also categorically deposed which item was given to the plaintif, herself and defendants 8 and 10. This evidence corroborates the evidence of DW2 and DW3. In the cross examination the will was showed to her about one month prior to her delivery. She deposed that on the 11th day after the death of her mother at about 3.30 P.M. the property was distributed among her sisters. She further deposed that as the 7th defendant is not at settled by then he bequeathed the house property to him. Her evidence in the cross examination by the plaintif further goes to show after gave amount to her and with the same he purchased the property at Vijayawada subsequent to marriage. Ofcourse PW1 though cross examined by the defendants 6 and 7 on 28 the lines her father purchased a site in her name and gave amounts to construct house she denied the same. But she gave evasive reply that she does not know her father purchased sites and got constructed houses for her sisters. It has to be observed that DW8 is none other than own sister of the defendants 7, 8 and 10. Had the mother has not shown the will and she has not received the gold items of her mother as deposed by her there is no reason for her to depose falsehood. It is suggested to her that the 7th defendant promised to give Rs.50,000/- to her to purchase the gold chain and ofcourse the same is not denied. But I do not find any probability in the said suggestion because had the 7th defendant simply promised to give Rs.50,000/- she depose falsehood because if the plaint schedule property is partitioned her share will be much more high. Therefore, the evidence of DW8 is also probablising the evidence of DW2 as to execution of Ex.B7 will.

xvii)It may be further noted that had they have not executed Ex.B7 will, there is no reason for the defendants 1 and 6 (DW1 and DW2) to admit the will who are none other than own brothers of the plaintif and 7th defendant because in the absence of such will they will also got share in item

No.1 of the plaint schedule property. It has to be seen that even the plaintif pleaded that their mother was in possession of her property till her death i.e.

3.10.1989 and he categorically deposed that from 3.10.1989 the 1st defendant is enjoying the property by collecting the rents from the tenants. This also probablises the will in acted upon.

29 xiii)It may be noted that though the defendants 6 and 7 contended by referring to Exs.B26 to B46 property tax receipts are in the name of

Venkataravamma and not in the name of Bhanu Prasad. But they are not much helpful to say they are pertain to item No.1 of the plaint schedule property as they do not bear door number and they bear only assessment number and assessment number is not mentioned in the plaint schedule. However as already stated even according to the plaintif from 3.10.1989 the 7th defendant is collecting the rents of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property i.e. since the death of their mother.

xix)In the light of my forgoing discussion this issue is answered affirmatively.

26)ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.2, dt. 8.6.2005 IN OS.NO.95/1995:-

2) Whether the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property was gifted to Smt.Nimmagadda Syamala Devi in 1982?

i)The plaintif categorically pleaded Syam Prasad left the house and since 1970 his whereabouts not known to anybody. Though the 1st defendant pleaded in his written statement as well as in the plaint in OS.No.466/99 that

Syam Prasad used to visit now and then his petrol bunk at Tadepalli but he also pleaded that he does not know his whereabouts since a long time and his address is also not available to anyone. The version of the 1st defendant that now and then he used to visit his (1st defendant) petrol bunk at Tadepalli the same is not substantiate because his chief affidavit is eschewed. In the cross examination which is held on 24.7.2003 he categorically stated his where 30 abouts’ are not known from 1970. His evidence is about 15 years back i.e. 15 years prior to 2003. DW2, DW3, DW5 as well as DW3 also admitted that since 1970 Syam Prasad where abouts are not known. In Ex.B47, dated 7.8.1993 the will executed by the father of the plaintif, defendants 1 to 10 also it is categorically recited by the father of the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10,

Syam Prasad left the house as bachelor on 10.10.1970. Therefore, it is an admitted fact that the where abouts of Syam Prasad are not known to the plaintif or defendants 1 to 10 or any of the relatives since more than 7 years prior to filing the suit. Under Section 108 of Indian Evidence Act, ifit is proved that a person has not heard by his who has naturally heard of him he had been not live, a presumption arises that he is not alive. When it is nobody’s case that Syam Prasad was alive. Hence this issue is answered affirmatively.

27)ISSUE Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 in OS.NO.691/96 AND ADDL. ISSUE No.1:

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover Rs.36,000/- being arrears of rent from November, 1995 to October, 1996?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled to evict the defendant from suit property?

4)Whether the suit property was gifted to Syamala Devi, W/o. Respondent in 1982?

5)Whether the quit notice is valid?

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to seek eviction of defendants from the schedule property?

For the sake of brevity and convenience in order to avoid repetition as the evidence that is to be appreciated is common, these issues are answered together.

31

i)The plaintif who is 7th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 as DW5 in his affidavit filed in lieu of his chief examination reiterated his version and deposed the 5th defendant started living in plaint schedule property (item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/95) with the permission of their father. After his death by virtue of will Ex.A4, dated 7.3.1990 he became the absolute owner of the same, therefore when he demanded the 5th defendant to vacate the premises he requested to continue as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.3000/-, accordingly paid rents upto October, 1995 and from November, 1995 onwards he committed default. Thereupon he issued Ex.A1 quit notice on 9.8.1996 terminating the tenancy by the end of 31.8.1996, but even thereafter he did not vacate the premises and he got it returned under Ex.A2. But in the cross examination he categorically deposed that there is no documentary evidence to show the defendant (the 5th defendant herein) paid the rents.

ii) The learned counsel for the plaintif in OS.No.691/1996 tried to impress upon the court that the defendants 19 and 20 did not come into witness box to prove their respective versions. Hence their version cannot be taken into consideration. It is admitted by DW8 that there is no document to show

Rs.40,000/- was given to his wife in lieu of Pasupukumkuma by her parents, that the said amount was entrusted to his father and the said house was given to their daughter (19th defendant). It is rightly contended by him that though the defendants 5, 19 and 20 pleaded, the said property was given in the presence of elders, relatives and friends but none of them were examined.

32

Their version is vague. The names of the relatives and friends are not mentioned. Moreover as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 7th defendant (Plaintif in OS.No.691/1996) as per Section 122 of Transfer of

Property Act gif of immovable property must be made voluntarily and without consideration. Moreover Section 123 of Transfer of Property Act postulates that for the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be efected by a registered instrument and attested by atleast two attestros. But in this case there is no such registered document. As such the defendants in

OS.No.691/1996 failed to prove their version. At the same time it cannot be

ignored that except the vague suggestion, the plaintif (7th defendant in

OS.No.95/95) also failed to prove landlord and tenant relationship.

iii)The learned counsel urged that even in the absence of proof of landlord and tenant relationship, the 7th defendant is entitled to claim item

No.2 as the absolute owner thereof and in pursuance of the answer to the issues in OS.No.95/95 he is entitled to claim delivery of possession of the same as held by the apex court by order dated 17.6.2005 passed in

C.R.P.No.2962/2004. When once the case of the defendants 5, 19 and 20 that item No.2 was given to the 20th defendant is false and untenable under law, the contention of the 7th defendant is to be accepted. The 7th defendant got issued Ex.A1 quit notice, which is marked in OS.No.691/1996 terminating the tenancy to the correct address which the 5th defendant (in OS.No.95/1995) got it returned with false postal endorsement. Hence notice is valid and there is 33 no proof of arrears of rents from November, 1996. Hence the plaintif in

OS.No.691/96 is entitled for the relief. But I am unable to find force in the

contention of the learned counsel for the plaintif in OS.No.691/96 simply because the defendant failed to prove his case that he is residing in the property as a owner when the plaintif (7th defendant in OS.No.95/1995) himself pleaded even during life time of his father, the defendant (5th defendant in OS.No.95/1995) is in possession of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property with permission it is for the plaintif (7th defendant) to prove the landlord and tenant relationship to get decree in OS.No.691/1996, if the plaintif (7th defendant in OS.No.95/95) failed to prove the landlord and tenant relationship, his remedy for eviction is not by virtue of Ex.A1 quit notice but the remedy is otherwise.

iv)It may be noted that admittedly the 7th defendant (Plaintif in

OS.No.691/1996) is an income tax assesses. As could be seen from the

contents in Ex.B22 to B25 which are income tax assessment orders show his mother showed the income from the rents from her property in her income tax returns. Had really the 7th defendant let out the property to the 5th defendant as a tenant and he paid the rents till October, 1995, the income tax returns of the 7th defendant for the said period certainly discloses the same. But the 7th defendant/plaintif did not choose to file any such document to prove his contention that there is landlord and tenant relationship between himself and the 5th defendant. Therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn Under 34

Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act. When the landlord and tenant relationship is not proved, the validity of Ex.A1 notice (in OS.No.691/1996) does not arise.

Hence these issues are answered negatively.

28)ISSUE NOS. 2, 3, 4, ADDL. ISSUES 1 AND 2 AND ISSUE NO.3 IN

OS.No.691/96 and ISSUE NO.1 IN OS NO.466/99 and ADDL. ISSUES

Nos. 1 and 3:

2)Whether the item Nos. 2 to 5 of the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Late Venkata Krishna Rao?

3)Whether the Will, dated 7.3.1990 in favour of D7 is true, valid and binding on the plaintif?

4)Whether the item Nos. 4 and 5 are the self acquired properties of D1, D2, D5 to D7?

1)Whether the item No.6 of the plaint schedule property is also joint family property under control and possession of D6 or not?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled to claim any share in the item No.6 of the plaint schedule property or not?

3)Whether the will dated 7-3-90 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to the partition of item nos.1 and 2 of the schedule properties as prayed for?

2)Whether the 7th defendant is liable to render accounts as prayed for?

On 2-7-2003 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders in

IA.No.2210/2002 after impleading the 10th defendant, dated 2.7.2003.

1)Whether the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property in nature?

2)Whether D5 is no more under law?

3)Whether the plaintif is entitled to a share in the plaint schedule property?

On 29-3-2012 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders in

IA.No.2210/2002 after impleading the 10th defendant, dated 2.7.2003.

35

1)Whether the defendants 10 and 11 have got any right and entitled to claim any share in the plaint schedule properties?

2)Whether the defendants 10 and 11 are necessary and proper parties to the suit?

For the sake of brevity and convenience in order to avoid repetition as the evidence that is to be appreciated is common, these issues are answered together.

i)The plaintif as PW1 reiterated her version in respect of items 2 to 6 of plaint schedule properties also. Similarly the defendants 5 to 7 deposed on the lines of their respective version as DW2, DW3 and DW8. In Ex.A1 legal notice, dated 23.2.1993 originally she claimed share in respect of item Nos. 1 to 5 contending that they are the own properties of their father Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, improved by him but treated as joint.

Again she issued Ex.A11 modification notice to delete the said version and to substitute that the property left behind by Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna

Rao is not his property but own ancestral in nature and with ancestral nucleus he acquired and improved them. According to the 5th defendant item Nos. 2 and 3 are absolute properties of his father but treated as joint. Whereas the version of 3rd defendant is also that they are ancestral properties being purchased with ancestral nucleus. But according to the defendants 6 and 7 that they are the absolute properties of their father. Though the plaintif contended while issuing Ex.A11 modification notice as if the earlier version is typographical mistake describing the nature of the property cannot be treated as a typographical mistake but certainly it shows she improvised her case.

36 ii)The plaintif in order to substantiate her version that there is a ancestral property got marked Exs.A26 and A27 sale deeds (DW8 also filed copies of the same documents which are marked as Exs.B93 and 95). Ex.A26 is the sale deed, dated 4.1.1952 in favour of 3rd parties for an extent Ac.1.92 cents land at their native village at Dokiparru executed by Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao and the defendants 1 to 5 who are undivided sons.

iii)As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7 the recitals in the documents goes to show the property covered under the said property is purchased by executant by late Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao who is the father of the plaintif and the defendants 1 to 10 on 22.1.1948. Ex.A27 dated 22.3.1964 executed by late Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao in favour of the 3rd parties. The recitals in the said document clearly shows that part of the property covered under the document is acquired by the vendor. By virtue of patta, dated 18.4.1928 issued by

Deputy Thasilar, Pamarru and the remaining extent purchased by him on 20.4.1946 from one Adusumilli Nageswara Rao under registered sale deed.

Therefore, Exs.A26 and A27 do not probablises that there were any ancestral nucleus and the said documents in fact show the said property was absolute property of the father of the plaintif and the defendants 1 to 10. During her cross examination by the defendants 6 and 7 PW1 categorically stated her father was the original owner of the property covered under Exs.A26 and A27.

37 iv)Though the 3rd defendant contended the plaint schedule properties were purchased with ancestral nucleus and cross examined the plaintif, DW1 and DW2, he did not choose to come into witness box to depose on oath as to his version and make himself available for cross-examination. Therefore, the said version cannot be taken into consideration.

v)The 1st defendant is eldest son his evidence goes to show he was born in 1934. His evidence during the cross examination of PW1 goes to show in 1937 itself their father shifted to Vijayawada and worked as a clerk and in or about 1941 or 1942 he started business. The evidence of 5th defendant as

DW8 goes to show his father started business and subsequently he started joining the sons as partners. Though he stated in or about 1960 or 1961 partnership among defendants 1 and 2 and their father started but he categorically deposed that he does not know when they were made as partners. The 3rd defendant did not come into witness box. Therefore his version that the property is the ancestral property cannot be taken into consideration. In fact, DW1 during the cross examination of DW6 and DW7 categorically testified that their father is the absolute owner of the property covered under Exs.A26 and A27. As such there is no probable evidence to show there is any ancestral nucleus.

vi)The evidence of DW8 in the cross examination of the defendants 6 and 7 goes to show that his father has Ac.2.00 land in Dokiparru village. It may be the property covered under Ex.A26 and he categorically deposed that 38 the amount derived from the said land is not sufficient to meet the expenses of family hence his father used to borrow the amount. Therefore, his father started business.

vii)Though the defendants 6 and 7 deposed that in 1967 there was family settlement but it is not supported by any documentary evidence.

However, DW1, DW2, DW3 and DW8 also stated in 1960 or 1961 the 1st defendant started the business. In fact the evidence of DW1 and DW8 goes to show in or about 1984 one petrol bunk Radha Krishna Service station was exclusively given to the 1st defendant and the other sons relinquished their rights. DW2 also admitted the said fact. DW1 testified he divided from his father in 1961. The evidence elicited from the cross examination of PW1, DW1 to DW8 goes to show there are other businesses, partnership business by name N.V.K.R. Agencies, Manohar Krishna Service station which is now come to the 6th defendant and N.V.K.R. Advertising agency. All these are admittedly partnership firms. Exs.B66 to B69 are the income tax assessment orders for 1982-1983 to 1985-1986 of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. All the assessments order the status of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao is shown individually and he showed the property and income from N.V.K.R.

Agencies and the income from item Nos. 2 and 3 also in his individual capacity.

It is not the case of the plaintif, the defendants 3 or 5 that at any time Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao submitted his income tax returns in the capacity of kartha of joint family. He always paid income tax in his individual 39 capacity showing the income from partnership business as a partner itself shows that no property was treated as joint family property.

viii)There is no dispute that the sale deeds pertaining to item Nos. 2 and 3 stands in the name of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B15 is the original sale deed pertaining to item No.3 which is in his name and

Ex.B66 to B69 assessment orders further corroborated the same. In order to prove Ex.B47 will, dated 7.3.1990 said to be executed by their father for his properties DW4, DW5 and DW7 are examined.

ix)DW4 is the son of the scribe (who drafted) is examined to identify the signature of his father Allanki Venkata Ramana on Ex.B47 will. Ex.B49 is the death certificate of Allanki Venkata Ramana, dated 22.5.1991. During his cross examination the plaintif got marked Ex.A22 and Ex.A23. Ex.A22 is the signature of the scribe to Ex.B47 Will on the Xerox copy of deposition of the scribe as DW8 in another matter. Ex.A23 is the signature of the scribe on the

Xerox copy of the will in dispute. It is elicited from him that in Ex.A22 his father signed as Allanki Venkataramana Vralu and in Ex.A23 the signature is as

Allanki Venkata Ramana. But he categorically stated that he used to sign in both ways sometimes as Allanki Venkataramana and sometimes as Allanki

Venkata Ramana Vralu. Exs.A22 and A23 did not disclose any diference except on additional word “Vralu” under Ex.A22. As could be seen from the description of the deposition DW8 is an Advocate as such he has no reason to speak false hood had Ex.B47 does not contain the signature of his father.

40

x)DW5 Tejomurtula Narasimha Murthy is an identifying witness at the time of registration of Ex.B47 will. He deposed that on 7.3.1990 when

Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao presented his will for registration

before Sub Registrar Office, Gandhinagar he was present. He categorically

deposed that before the Sub Registrar Office, the testator Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao admitted that he executed the said will and put his signature. Then he signed before Sub Registrar Office, as identifying witness along with other witnesses. He further testified that the Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao put his signature as well as thumb impression on the said will before the Sub Registrar. During cross examination the counsel for the plaintif obtained his specimen handwriting and got it marked as Ex.A25. But it is no way helpful and material. Though his specimen writing Ex.A24 when compared with his signature on Ex.B47 there are some minor variations found between the two, but it cannot be ignored that Ex.B47 is dated 7.3.1999 and

Ex.B23 is obtained on 10.11.2003. Thus there is a gap of 13 years, it is well known that the signatures and handwritings keep on changing in the course of time. It is further elicited from him that one of the attestor to Ex.B47 is his typist P.M.Sarma. He further testified that his full name is Markendaya Sarma but he does not know his complete surname. As could be seen from him initially the signature of the 2nd attestor on the photocopy of the will is marked as Ex.A25 but immediately the preceeding officer made a note that the counsel for the plaintif pleaded the last page of the photo stat copy of will and 41 asked the witness to identify whether the particular signature written in pen on the said Photostat copy is that of P.M.Sarma, who is the typist of the witness, but as it was recently written with a pen on the Photostat copy of the will, the question is rejected. Therefore, Ex.A25 cannot be considered. Ex.B48 the death certificate of 2nd attestor Markendaya Sarma shown he died on 22.5.1991.

xi)DW7 Nandigam Nageswara Rao is examined as 1st attestor to

Ex.B47. His evidence goes to show that he got acquaintance with Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao through the 6th defendant. He deposed that one day prior to his execution of Ex.B47 will Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao wanted him to come to the Sub Registrar Office, Gandhinagar, to attest the will, which he intend to execute on the following day. Accordingly he went there they all met in the office of the document writer

A.Venkataramana which is situated opposite to Sub Registrar’s office. It is his evidence is that Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao gave instructions to the scribe Venkata Ramana to prepare the draft and after preparing the draft he wanted him to get it typed and when the scribe got it typed and read over, then Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao also read it and satisfied then put his signature on the will in their presence. Then he wanted himself and another who are already there to attest the same and both of them attested in his presence. The testator wanted the scribe to sign, then the scribe wanted 42 to put his signature. Thus the evidence of DW7 proves the execution of Will in accordance with Section 63 of Indian Succession Act.

xii)It is elicited from DW7 he worked as an accountant in a firm

Srivenkateswara Engineering Contract and he knows the family of Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao through the 6th defendant. His evidence goes to show that as an accountant he used to attend the office of Brahmaiah and company. He denied the suggestion given by the counsel for the 5th defendant that the 6th defendant brought a drafted document to him and asked him to sign in the document as an attestor and at his request he signed on it. Ofcourse during the cross examination of plaintif he stated that he does not know the total members of the family. But it is an admitted fact that the 6th defendant is an income tax practitioner and he was working in the

Brahmaiah and Company which is a chartered accountant firm. Therefore, there is no improbability in DW7 knowing the 6th defendant and the testator.

There is no reason for DW7 to speak falsehood. Though DW4, DW5 and DW7 are subjected to cross examination nothing worth was elicited to shatter their evidence. DW1, DW2 and DW6 are not benefices under the wills. In fact,

DW6 will get share in item Nos. 1 to 3 had her parents died intestate.

Therefore, there is no reason for her to support the wills which benefits the 7th defendant. Thus by unshattered evidence of DW7 who is an attestor to

Ex.B47, the defendants 6 and 7 proved that late Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao executed Ex.B47 will in a sound and disposing state of mind. The 43 evidence of PW1 goes to show her mother and father died all of sudden due to heart problem, prior to that they are hale and healthy. Therefore, it proves that

Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao executed the will in a sound and disposing state of mind. Under Ex.B47 will he bequeathed item Nos. 2 and 3 of the plaint schedule properties and also undivided 1/5th share in item No.6 to the 7th defendant. It is recited in the will that he is a freedom fighter and thus getting pension from the Government. He further recited that he did business of Khadi along with his sons, later on 31.9.1961 they divided the said business and got it assessed in income tax department, since then himself and his sons are doing their respective business and looking after their respective properties, therefore whatever the properties are acquired are his self acquired properties. He also recited as to his another son Syam Prasad leaving the house on 10.10.1970, that he performed the marriage of all the daughters by giving all lanchanams and all the sons and daughters are well settled but the 7th defendant is financially not much sound when compared to other sons and all other sons are financially well settled. Even the fact elicited from the defendants 1 and 2 and DW1 to DW3 goes to show by 7.3.1990, the defendants 1, 6, and 5 are already well settled in their respective business.

DW1 categorically deposed that during the cross examination in 1984 other partners i.e. other brothers relinquished their share in Radha Krishna service station to him. The evidence of DW2 goes to show he is an income tax practitioner from 1969. Apart from that he has also business and he has 44 petrol bunk, Manohar Krishna service station. It is also admitted fact that the defendants 2 and 5 have also got business. The evidence of DW3 goes to show that he completed his graduation in Engineering in 1988. Therefore by the date of execution of Ex.B47 it is only the 7th defendant who was not financially well settled when compared to other children. Therefore, there is no probability or suspicious circumstances in execution of Ex.B47 will. While answering the issue No.1 in OS.No.95/95 as already stated though PW1 denied that her father gave landed property and also financially helped for construction of the house, DW6 who is the 9th defendant categorically admitted that her father gave land and also financially supported for construction of house. This evidence of DW6 fortifies the recital in Ex.47 will.

xiii)In respect of his movable properties the testator categorically mentioned he has one diamond ring, rubi and 6 soverigns of Gold chain and he bequeathed the said jewelry to the 7th defendant. In respect of cash lying to his credit in his banks and LIC he made arrangement that out of the said cash

Rs.1,00,000/- shall be kept for philanthropy. He further mentioned that his son

Syam Prasad has share in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property and in respect of 1/6th share of Syam Prasad he made an arrangement that his share of amount shall be used for the education of poor children. The validity of leaving aside the said clause at this juncture I would like to refer this clause to prove the genuineness of the will. He not only made arrangement for the 7th defendant, but also made arrangement for philanthropy works this shows the 45 genuineness of the will. So far as the 3rd defendant is concerned he did not choose to cross examine DW4 to DW8. Therefore, so far the 3rd defendant is concerned their evidence is remained unchallenged.

xiv)The foregoing discussion proves Ex.B47 Will is executed by Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in a sound and disposing state of mind and by virtue of Ex.B47 Will, the 7th defendant because the absolute owner of item

Nos. 2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties.

xv)Exs.B185 and 183 are the mutation endorsements, dated 20.9.1993 in respect of item Nos. 2 and 3 respectively also shows Ex.B47 will is acted upon.

xvi)Now coming to items 4 and 5 (item Nos. 1 and 2 in OS.No.499/96) of the plaint schedule properties Exs.B88 and B89 (the certified copies of said sale deeds are marked through DW1 as Exs.B1 and B2 and his chief examination eschewed are the sale deeds pertaining to the same. The evidence of DW1 to DW3 and DW8 supported by Ex.B88 shows it is purchased in the name of the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 and Syam Prasad and Ex.B89 shows item No.5 is purchased by the defendants 1 to 6. It is an admitted fact that by the time of both the sale deeds, the 7th defendant was minor and represented by his father.

xvii)The learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7 contended that one of the purchasers by name Syam Prasad of item No.4 of the plaint 46 schedule property was not known from 1970. But Ex.B88 is dated 12.10.1971.

However he tried to impress upon the court that it is purchased by the purchasers in their individual capacity out of their share of income from partnership firm Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao & Sons. However the defendants have not filed any partnership deed pertaining to Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao & Sons. But the recitals in Ex.B88 shows that the consideration is paid by way of cheques in the name of Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and sons. As already stated though the partnership deed is not filed it shows that the property is purchased for the benefit of the purchasers mentioned in the document but not as joint family.

As already stated Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao always used to file his returns in his individual capacity but not as Kartha of any joint family.

Moreover as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7, the 14th defendant who is the tenant of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property pleaded that they took lease from the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 from 1.4.1997 and rent is being deposited in the account of Babu Rajendra Prasad and brothers. That shows the property is purchased for the benefit of individuals but not for the benefit of joint family.

xviii) DW1 is cross examined that in 1993 he gave paper publication along with the 3rd defendant that their parents died intestate and similarly he also gave report against his father under Exs.B96, 98 and 99 and the private complaint filed by the 1st defendant against his father in OS.No.261/1999 47

Under Ex.B97 alleging that he is misappropriating the amounts collected from item No.4 of the plaint schedule property. It is elicited from DW2 in 1982 they gave power of attorney to their father to collect the rents for item Nos. 4 and 5 of the plaint schedule property. Had the properties are purchased as joint properties, the question of giving power of attorney to Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao does not arise as he will be kartha of joint family.

Moreover, this shows that the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 are joint owners of item

No.5 of the plaint schedule property.

xix)Be it noted that for item No.4 of the plaint schedule property,

Syam Prasad’s is a joint owner. But his whereabouts are not known from 1970.

Hence he is presumed to be died by 1977 and 1978. Ex.B47 as discussed supra late Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao made an arrangement with regard to the share of Syam Prasad in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property. But it is to be noted that Syam Prasad presumed to be died by the end 1977 or 1978 where as the mother of the plaintif died on 18.10.1988.

Therefore, Syam Prasad is presumed to be predeceased his mother.

Admittedly, he left the house as a bachelor. Therefore, the mother is only class-I heir of Syam Prasad. As such the property bequeathed to Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in respect of item No.4 for the share of

Syam Prasad is not valid. However under Ex.B7 the mother has not made any arrangement in respect of the share of Syam Prasad in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property, her 1/6th share will be devolved on the plaintif, the 48 defendants 1 to 10 and her husband Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao that means the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10 will get 1/72th share each.

The income of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property shall be given to the other joint owners i.e. the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 for maintenance of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property and to help the education of poor children.

Thus the defendants 1, 2, 5 and 10 each will get 1/6th share + 1/72th share i.e.

13/72th in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property. In item No.5 of the plaint schedule property, the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 will have 1/5th share.

xx)Coming to item No.6 of the plaint schedule property Exs.A30 and

A31 shows it is purchased by Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao i.e.

father of the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10 and one Subrahmanya Prasad,

S/o. the 2nd defendant. Being minors the 7th defendant is represented by his father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and Subrahmanya Prasad is represented by 2nd defendant. As already discussed supra, the properties are purchased for the benefit of individuals but not as joint. Therefore in item

No.6 also the plaintif as well as the defendants 2, 4, 8 to 10 will not have any share. As per Ex.B47 the share of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao devolved on DW3 i.e. 7th defendant. The 7th defendant deposed that himself,

Subrahmanya Prasad i.e. son of the 2nd defendant and 6th defendant gave the property to the 4th defendant and got marked the certified copies of gift deed, dated, 26.7.1993 which is marked as Ex.B188. Therefore, the learned counsel for the plaintif, the defendants 6 and 7 contends that the 5th defendant has 49 1/5th share in item No.6 of the plaint schedule property and remaining 4/5th share belongs to the 4th defendant. It may be noted that item No.6 is added subsequently and subsequent to adding of item No.6, the defendants 6 and 7 filed their additional written statement. But in the additional written statement they did not mention about Ex.B188. Therefore, whatever it be one of the joint owner by name Subrahmanya Prasad is not party to the suit. As stated the plaintif has no share in the said property. Under those circumstances I do not want to dwell into Ex.B188 gift deed.

29. ISSUE NO.2 IN OS.No.466/1999:

1)Whether the 2nd defendant is liable to render accounts as prayed for.

i)The plaintif who is his joint owner of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property extensively let in evidence to show as per the orders in interlocutory application filed by the 14th defendant in OS.No.1358/99, the keys pertaining to ground floor of item No.4 (item No.1 in OS.No.466/99) handed over to the 6th defendant. However DW8 (2nd defendant in this suit) admitted that he let out to Andhra Bank with consent of other brothers. He further testified that later he himself let out the same in 1997 or 1998 to the present tenant and collecting the rents. Therefore, he is liable to account the amounts collected by him to all the joint owners of item No.4 and 5 of the plaint schedule properties.

ii)In view of my forgoing discussion, this issue is answered affirmatively.

30)ISSUE No.5 in OS.No.95/1995:

50

5)Whether the 17th defendant is a necessary party to this suit?

i)Admittedly the 17th defendant is the tenant of item No.5 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/1995 (which is item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/99). As could be seen from the record the rents are credited by the 17th defendant in bank. It is pleaded by them due to disputes between the family members of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna

Rao, the defendant bank deposited the rents in the account of Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. In fact during the pendency of suit, the 17th defendant filed petition in IA.No.947/2006 in OS.No.466/99 they want to vacate the premises by the first of January, 2007. At the instance of the 3rd defendant. In IA.No.1/2007 an advocate receiver is appointed on 7.6.2007 to manage the item No.5 of the plaint schedule property and to take possession from the 17th defendant. In IA.No.947/2006 in OS.No.499/96 the court passed the orders, dated 20.6.2007 directing the 7th defendant to handover the keys to the receiver and receiver took possession of the item No.5 of the plaint schedule property from the 17th defendant all for tenders to lease out the same. But at the time the petitioner delivered the plaint schedule property, he found the building is exclusively damaged and directed the 17th defendant’s officials to get the damaged estimated, but they did not get the damages estimated under the back ground of these facts, the 17th defendant being a tenant and in possession of one of the item of plaint schedule property he is a proper and necessary party.

51 ii)Hence this issue is answered.

31)ISSUE NO.6 IN OS.No.95/95:

i)Whether the suit is property valued or not?

ii)Whether the plaintif is entitled to the partition of the property as prayed for?

i)In the light forgoing discussion and the answers to issue Nos. 1 to 4 and additional issue No.1, dated 8.6.2005 and additional issue Nos. 1 and 2,

dated 11.12.2006 I found that the plaintif is not entitled to any share in items

No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 of the plaint schedule properties. However, she is entitled to 1/72th share in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property.

31.ISSUE NOs.7 and 8 in OS.No.95/1995:-

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled for the mesne profits as claimed?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled for the future profits?

i)In view of the answers to issue No.6 the plaintif is entitled for mesne profits for her 1/72th share. However, mesne profits has to be ascertained by way of separate application Under Order XX Rule 12 C.P.C. in

Saint Mary’s Educational Society, Represented by its Secretary and

others Vs. Dr. Qutubuddin Ahmed and others, reported in 2007 (3)

ALT 214. Our Hon’ble High Courtheld that

the mesne profits to be ascertained on an

application made under the mandatory provision of Rule 12 of Order 20 of C.P.C., fixation of mesne profits straightaway by courts below without following the said mandatory procedure 52 is not legal. The damages as to be ascertained by way of separate application.

ii)Accordingly she is entitled for mesne profits and future profits till delivery of her share.

14.ADDL. ISSUE NO.3, DATED 13.12.2006 IN OS.NO.95/95:

Whether the suit is properly valued or not?

i)The contention of the defendant is that except in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property the plaintif is not entitled for any other items as they are not joint family properties the plaintif is not in possession of item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the plaint schedule properties but the plaintif paid only fixed court fee for the item Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6. But she ought to have paid the court fee Under Section 34 of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act. But it may be noted that none of the defendants has not specifically pleaded exactly when the plaintif was ousted. Moreover, the plaintif is having share in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property.

ii)Hence this issue is answered in favour of the plaintif.

32.ISSUE NO.9 IN OS 95/95, ISSUE NO.6 IN OS.NO.691/1996 AND

ISSUE NO.3 IN OS.NO.466/1999:

To what relief?

In view of the answer to issues discussed supra, the suit in

OS.No.466/1999 is preliminarily decreed and the suit is partly decreed

53 preliminarily in OS.No.95/95 allotting 1/72th share each to the plaintif, defendants 3, 4, 8 to 10 and 13/72th share each to the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property (item No.1 of plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/99) and the remaining 1/72th share belongs to the deceased Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in the 1/6th share of

Nimmagadda Syam Prasad shall be utilized for the purpose as per his bequeath under Ex.B47, dated 7.3.1990.

The plaintif is also entitled for mesne profits by way of separate application for her 1/72th share in the said item No.4 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/95 (item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in

OS.No.466/99).

Item No.5 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/95 (item No.2 of plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/99) shall be partitioned among the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 (the plaintif and the defendants 1 to 4 in

OS.No.466/99) and each of them shall get 1/5th share in the said item.

The rest of the claim of the plaintif in OS.No.95/95 is dismissed.

The suit in OS.No.691/1996 is also dismissed.

In the circumstances the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 7th day of March, 2017

VII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN O.S.NO.95/95

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PLAINTIFF: PW1 : Adusumilli Chinnamma PW2: Nimmagadda Sivaramakrishna Prasad

DEFENDANT: DW1: Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad 54

DW2: Nimmagadda Lalitha Prasad DW3: Nimmagadda Bhanu Prasad DW4: A.V.Ramana DW5: Tejomurthula Narasimha Murthy DW6: Smt.Potluri Lakshmikantha DW7: Nadigam Nageswara Rao DW8: Nimmagadda Rama Prasad

Documents marked on behalf of Plaintif

Ex.A1: Office copy of notice dated 23.02.1993 Ex.A2: Returned cover of D1. Ex.A3: Acknowledgement of D2. Ex.A4: Acknowledgement of D3 Ex.A5: Acknowledgement of D5 Ex.A6: Acknowledgement of D6 Ex.A7: Acknowledgement of D7 Ex.A8: Acknowledgement of D8 Ex.A9: Acknowledgement of D9 Ex.A10: Acknowledgement of D10 Ex.A11: Office copy of notice dated 06.03.1993 Ex.A12: Returned notice of D1 Ex.A13: Acknowledgement of D2 Ex.A14: Acknowledgement of D3 Ex.A15: Acknowledgement of D6 Ex.A16: Acknowledgement of D7 Ex.A17: Acknowledgement of D8 Ex.A18: Acknowledgement of D9 Ex.A19: Acknowledgement of D10 Ex.A20: Reply for Ex.A1 dated 16.03.1993 Ex.A21: Acknowledgement of D4 Ex.A22: Signature of Allanka Venkata Ramana of deposition in C.A. No.6673/2003 dated 14.10.2000(marked through DW4) Ex.A23: Signature of Allanka Venkata Ramana on the last page of Will (marked through DW4) Ex.A24: Specimen hand writing of T. Narasimha Murthy dated 10.11.2003 (marked through DW5) Ex.A25: Signature of P.M.Sarma as 2nd attestor in photostat copy of will (marked through DW5 on 10.11.2003) Ex.A26: Registration extract of sale deed dated 05.01.1952 executed by N.V.Krishna Rao and his minor sons for the property relating to Dokiparru village. Ex.A27: Registration extract of sale deed dated 23.03.1962 executed by N.V.Krishna Rao at Dokiparru. Ex.A28: Registration extract of sale deed dated 06.04.1965 executed by Venkata Rama Monoharam. Ex.A29: Registration extract of sale deed dated 06.04.1965 executed by Venkata Rama Manoharam. Ex.A30: Sale Deed executed by Kommineni Venkataratnam in favour of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and others(registration extract) 55

dated 07.07.1981.

Ex.A31: Sale deed executed by Nanapaneni Venkateswara Rao in favour of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and Others (registration extract)

dated 07.07.1981.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defendants

Ex.B1: Registration Extract of the Registered sale deed executed by Palaparti Purnanandam dated 12.10.1971. Ex.B2: Registration Extract of the Registered sale deed executed by Kasinaduni Sambasiva Rao dated 27.01.1978. Ex.B3: Market value certificate issued by S.R.O. VJA., for item No.5 dated 30.04.1999. Ex.B4: Marked value certificate issued by S.R.O., VJA., for item No.4 dated 29.04.1999. Ex.B5: Estimate issued by the Licensed Surveyor estimating the value of G.F.,F.F. and S.F. of item No.4 dated 25.08.1999. Ex.B6: Estimate issued by the Licensed Surveyor estimating the value of G.F., F.F. and S.F. of item no.5 dated 25.08.1999. Ex.B7: Will executed by Nimmagadda Venkatravamma dated 10.12.1986. Ex.B8: Registration Sale Deed executed by Smt. G.Savithri dated 22.09.1989. Ex.B9: Death Certificate of Smt. N.Venkatravamma dated 03.11.1989. Ex.B10: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B11: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B12: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B13: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B14: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B15: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B16: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B17: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B18: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B19: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B20: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B21: Income Tax Assessment Order of Smt. N.Venkatravamma for the Assessment year 1986-87 dated 14.10.1987. Ex.B22: Income Tax Assessment Order of Smt. N.Venkatravamma for the Assessment year 1987-88. Ex.B23: Income Tax Assessment Order of Smt. N.Venkatravamma for the assessment year 1988-89 dated 11.03.1991. Ex.B24: Income Tax Refund Order for the Assessment year 1989-90 of Smt. N.Venkatravamma dated 14.03.1991. Ex.B25: Income Tax Refund Order for the Assessment year 1990-91 of Smt. N.Venkatravamma dated 14.03.1991. Ex.B26: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B27: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B28: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma.

56

Ex.B29: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B30: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B31: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B32: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B33: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B34: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B35: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B36: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B37: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B38: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B39: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B40: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B41: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B42: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B43: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B44: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B45: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B46: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B47: Registered Will executed by Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 57 07.03.1990. Ex.B48: Death Certificate of P.Markandeya Sarma dated 25.07.2003. Ex.B49: Death Certificate of Allanki Venkataramana dated 08.02.2003. Ex.B50: Registered Sale Deed executed by Smt. Panuganti Tulasamma in favour of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 21.04.1964. Ex.B51: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B52: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B53: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B54: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B55: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B56: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B57: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B58: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B59: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B60: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B61: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B62: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B63: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B64: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B65: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B66: Income tax Assessment Order for the Assessment year 1982-1983 of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 01.06.1985. Ex.B67: Income Tax Assessment Order for the Assessment year 1983-84 of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 05.09.1986.

58

Ex.B68: Income Tax Assessment Order for the Assessment year 1984-85 of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 05.09.1986. Ex.B69: Income Tax Assessment Order for the Assessment year 1985-86 of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 05.09.1986. Ex.B70: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B71: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B72: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B73: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B74: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B75: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B76: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B77: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B78: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B79: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B80: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B81: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B82: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years 59 commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B83: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B84: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B85: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B86: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B87: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B88: Original of Ex.B1 Registered Sale Deed executed by Palaparti Purnanandam dated 12.10.1971. Ex.B89: Original of Ex.B2 Registered Sale Deed executed by Kasinaduni Sambasiva Rao dated 27.01.1978. Ex.B90: Certified copy of Plaint in O.S.No.1358/199 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil

Judge Court, Vijayawada. dated 16.06.1999.

Ex.B91: Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No.1358/1999 dated 12.07.2000. Ex.B92: Certified copy of Decree in O.S.No.1358/1999 on the file of I Addl. Junior

Civil Judge's Court, Vijayawada dated 12.07.2000.

Ex.B93: Registered Sale Deed executed by Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao

dated 04.01.1952.

Ex.B94: Registered Sale Deed executed by Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatrama Manoharam and Smt. Yerneni Lakshmi Narsamma dated 05.04.1965. Ex.B95: Registered Sale Deed executed by Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatrama Manoharam dated 05.04.1965. Ex.B96: News Paper publication given by D1 and D3 against D7 dated 04.09.1993. Ex.B97: Private Complaint filed by D1 against Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in C.C. No.276/1991 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada date 13.11.1990. Ex.B98: News paper publication got issued by D1 dated 28.05.1989. Ex.B99: News paper publication got issued by D1 Ex.B100: Letter written by D1, D2, D5, D6 and D7 dated 13.06.1995. Ex.B101: Distribution of responsibilities in the administration of properties of N.Babu Rajendra Prasad and Brothers among the co-owners enclosed to Ex.B100

dated 13.06.1995.

Ex.B102: Letter addressed by D1 to the Assistant General / Zonal Manager, Bank of 60

Baroda, Madras dated 06.06.1995. Ex.B103: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B104: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B105: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B106: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B107: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B108: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B109: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B110: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B111: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B112: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B113: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B114: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B115: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B116: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item 61

Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B117: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B118: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B119: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B120: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B121: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B122: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B123: Letter from D1 Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad to D14 Andhra Bank

dated 19.07.1995.

Ex.B124: Letter from D5 N.Rama Prasad to D14 Andhra Bank dated 21.05.1994. Ex.B125: Letter from D5 N.Rama Prasad to D14 Andhra Bank dated 08.07.1994. Ex.B126: legal notice got issued by D5 N. Rama Prasad to D14 Andhra Bank dated 15.08.1994. Ex.B127: Postal acknowledgement for Ex.B126 dated 17.08.1994. Ex.B128 Reply legal notice got issued by D14 Andhra Bank to Ex.B126 dated 27.08.1994. Ex.B129: Letter from N.Babu Rajendra Prasad and Brothers to D14 Andhra Bank

dated 25.10.1993.

Ex.B130: Letter addressed by D1 N.Babu Rajendra Prasad on behalf of N.Babu Rajendra Prasad & Brothers to D14 Andhra Bank. Ex.B131: Letter from D1 Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad on behalf of N.Babu Rajendra Prasad and Brothers to D14 Andhra Bank dated 01.06.1995. Ex.B132: Settlement Agreement dated 01.11.1982. Ex.B133: Death Certificate of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 03.10.1992, Ex.B134: Transfer of Ration Card in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad dated 19.05.1994. Ex.B135: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 62 to 1413. Ex.B136: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1392 to 1413. Ex.B137: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1393 to 1413. Ex.B138: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1394 to 1413. Ex.B139: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1395 to 1413. Ex.B140: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1396 to 1413. Ex.B141: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1397 to 1413. Ex.B142: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1398 to 1413. Ex.B143: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1399 to 1413. Ex.B144: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B145: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B146: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B147: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B148: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B149: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B150: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B151: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B152: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B153: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413.

63

Ex.B154: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B155: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B156: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B157: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B158: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B159: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B160: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B161: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B162: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B163: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B164: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B165: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B166: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B167: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B168: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B169: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B170: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B171: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413.

64

Ex.B172: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B173: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B174: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B175: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B176: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B177: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B178: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B179: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B180: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B181: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B182: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B183: Mutation endorsement issued by V.M.C. In respect of Assessment No.26414 dated 20.09.1993. Ex.B184: Mutation endorsement issued by V.M.C. In respect of Assessment No.26423 dated 27.09.1993. Ex.B185: Mutation Endorsement issued by V.M.C. In respect of Assessment No.26416 dated 06.10.1993. Ex.B186: Letter from Bill Collector, Ward No.28/2, to the Commissioner V.M.C.

Dated 07.10.1993.

Ex.B187: Pass Book of N.Venkatravamma for her S.B. Account No.2330 in Indian Bank, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada. Ex.B188: Registration extract of gift deed executed by D6 and D7 and Nimmagadda Subramanya Prasad in favour of Defendant No.4 along with typed copy. Ex.B189: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B190: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B191: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, 65

Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B192: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B193: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B194: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B195: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B196: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN O.S.NO.691/1996

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT: PW1: Bhanu PrasadNil Documents marked on behalf of Plaintif Ex.A1: 25.08.2004: Office copy of legal notice dated 09.08.1996. Ex.A2: 25.08.2004: Return R.P. cover Ex.A3: 25.08.2004: Sale deed dated 27.02.1965. Ex.A4: 25.08.2004: Certified copy of will dated 07.03.1990. Ex.A5: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 02.12.1983. Ex.A6: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 17.02.1984. Ex.A7: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 25.02.1985. Ex.A8: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 04.11.1985. Ex.A9: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 23.01.1986. Ex.A10: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 16.07.1986. Ex.A11:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 10.03.1987. Ex.A12:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 22.08.1987. Ex.A13:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 12.01.1988. Ex.A14:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 09.09.1988. Ex.A15:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 31.03.1989. Ex.A16:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 15.07.1989. Ex.A17:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 15.02.1990. Ex.A18:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 27.08.1990. Ex.A19:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 12.03.1991. Ex.A20:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 31.08.1991. Ex.A21:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 25.02.1992. Ex.A22: 25.08.2004: Endorsement certificate given by Municipal Corporation

dated 20.09.1993.

Ex.A23:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 25.06.1994. Ex.A24:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 19.09.1994. Ex.A25:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 29.03.1995. Ex.A26:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 01.11.1995. Ex.A27:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 14.05.1996. Ex.A28:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 30.09.1996. Ex.A29:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 26.02.1997. Ex.A30:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 15.11.1997. Ex.A31:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 06.11.1997. Ex.A32:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 01.02.1999.

66

Ex.A33:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 11.09.1999. Ex.A34:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 27.03.2000. Ex.A35:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 02.09.2000. Ex.A36:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 23.02.2001. Ex.A37:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 06.08.2001. Ex.A38:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 18.01.2002. Ex.A39:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 16.08.2002. Ex.A40:25.08.2004: Certificate of Architect dated 29.12.2003.

Documents marked on behalf of Defendant Nil

VII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: SMT. M.MADHURI,

VII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA.

TUESDAY THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016

O.S.NO.95/1995 , OS 691/1996 AND OS 466/1999

OS.NO.95/1995

Between:

Smt.Adusumilli Chinnamma… Plaintif

A N D

1) Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad

2) Nimmagadda Dhana Ratna Prasad

3) Nimmagadda Sivarama Prasad

4) Nimmagadda Udaya Bhaskara Durga Bhavani Prasad

5) Nimmagadda Rama Prasad

6) Nimmagadda Lalitha Prasad

7) Nimmagadda Bhanu Prasad

8) Smt.Kosaraju Durga Bhavani

9) Smt.Potluri Lakshmi Kantha

10) Smt.Potluri Jayalakshmi

11) Approach Computers, Rep. by its Managing Partner, R.Kumar Raja.

12) Potluri Krishna Murthy

13) C.R.Ravichandran

14) Andhra Bank, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Eluru Road.

15) A.P. Book Distributors.

16) The Hindu Paper Office

17) Bank of Baroda, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Vijayawada.

18) Nimmagadda Bala Bhaskara Krishna Prasad (18th defendant is added as per the orders Of High Court of Judicature, A.P., Hyderabad In CRP.No.4625/2001)

19) Nimmagadda Venkata Ramani (19th defendant is added as per the orders Of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.1542/2004,

Dated 15.3.2005)

20) Nimmagadda Syamala Devi (20th defendant is added as per the orders Of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.163/2005,

Dated 15.3.2005) … Defendants

OS.NO.691/1996

Between:

2

Nimmagadda Bhanu Prasad… Plaintif

A N D

1) Nimmagadda Ram Prasad

2) V.V.Ramani

3) N.Syamala Devi

4) Nimmagadda Siva Ram Prasad (4th defendant is added as per the orders of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.253/2007,

Dated 21.1.2008) … Defendants

OS.NO.466/1999

Between:

Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad… Plaintif

A N D

1) Nimmagadda Dhana Ratna Prasad

2) Nimmagadda Ram Prasad

3) Nimmagadda Lalitha Prasad

4) Nimmagadda Bhanu Prasad

5) Nimmagadda Shyam Prasad 6)Andhra Pradesh Book Distributors.

7) Swrnandhra Telugu Daily

8) Andhra Bank, Eluru Road.

9) Bank of Baroda, Musuem Road Branch, Vijayawada.

10) Smt.Adusumilli Chinnamma (10th defendant is added as per the orders of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.2210 /2003,

Dated 26.6.2003)

11) Nimmagadda Sivarama Prasad (11th defendant is added as per the orders Of this Hon’ble Court in IA.No.254 /2007,

Dated 21.1.2008) … Defendants

These suits are coming on this day before me on in the presence of Sri M.Lakshman, Advocate for the plaintif, Sri S.Rajendra Prasad, Advocate for the 1st defendant, the defendants 3 and 5 are in person; Sri V.Veerasalingam, Advocate for the defendants 6 and 7; Sri K.Laxmi Pathi, Advocate for the 14th defendant; Sri D.T.Vyas, Advocate for the 17th defendant; Sri Ch.Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the 19th defendant, of Sri CH.G.R., Advocate for the 20TH defendant and the defendants 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18 remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

The suit in OS.No.95/1995 is comprehensive suit originally filed for partition of item Nos. 1 to 5 of the plaint schedule properties against the 3 defendants 1 to 17. Subsequently as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court under various IAs, the defendants 18 to 20 were added and item No.6 is also added to the plaint schedule properties.

2)The suit in OS.No.691/1996 is filed by the plaintif who is the 7th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 originally against the sole defendant i.e. the 5th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 for his eviction of the plaint schedule property (which is item No.2 of plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/1995) subsequently as per the orders in diferent IAs defendants 2 to 4 were added.

3)The suit in OS.No.466/1999 is filed for partition of the plaint schedule properties by the plaintif, who is the 1st defendant in OS.No.95/1995 originally against the defendants 1 to 9 who are some of the defendants in

OS.No.95/1995 and one Syam Prasad. Subsequently the defendants 10 and

11 are added as per the orders in diferent IAs.

4)For better appreciation I would like to refer the parties by way of table:

S.N OS.NO.95/19 OS.NO.691/19 OS.NO.466/19

Name of the Party

o 95 96 99

Smt.Adsumilli 1Plaintif -10th defendant Chinnamma NimmagaddaBabu 21st defendant-Plaintif Rajendra Prasad NimmagaddaDhana 32nd defendant - 1st defendant Ratna Prasad Nimmagadda 4 3rd defendant 4th defendant - Sivarama Prasad NimmagaddaUdaya 5BhaskaraDurga 4th defendant - - Bhavani Prasad Nimmagadda Rama 6 5th defendant1st defendant 2nd defendant Prasad Nimmagadda Lalitha 7 6th defendant - 3rd defendant Prasad NimmagaddaBhanu 8 7th defendantPlaintif 4th defendant Prasad 9Smt.Kosaraju Durga 8th defendant - - 4

Bhavani Smt.PotluriLakshmi 10 9th defendant - - Kantha 10th 11Smt.Potluri Jayalakshmi - - defendant Approach Computers, 11th 12Rep. by its Managing - - defendant Partner: R.Kumar Raja. 12th defendant 13Potluri Krishna Murthy - - 13th 14 C.R.Ravichandran - - defendant Andhra Bank, Rep. by 14th 15its Branch Manager, - 8th defendant defendant Manager, Eluru Road. 15th defendant 16A.P. Book Distributors. - 6th defendant 16th 17The Hindu Paper Office - - defendant Bank of Baroda, Rep. 18by its Branch Manager,17th defendant - 9th defendant Vijayawada NimmagaddaBala BhaskaraKrishna Prasad (18th defendant is added as per the18th 19 - - orders Hon’ble Highdefendant Court of Judicature, A.P. Hyderabadin

CRP.No.4625/2001)

Nimmagadda Venkata Ramani (19th defendant 20is added as per the19th defendant -- orders in IA.No.1542 / 2004 Nimmagadda Syamala Devi (20th defendant is added as per the 2120th defendant3rd defendant - ordersin

IA.No.163/2005, dated

15.3.2005. VallurupalliVenkata 22-2nd defendant- Ramani NimmagaddaSyam 23--5th defendant Prasad SwarnandhraTelugu 24--7th defendant Daily

5)Though there are some diferences with regard to the boundaries from item No.2 of plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/1995 and in OS.No.466/1999 it is claimed by all parties item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in 5

OS.No.95/1995 is the plaint schedule property in OS.No.691/1996. It is an

admitted fact that item Nos.4 and 5 of plaint schedule properties in

OS.No.95/1995 are item No.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties in

OS.No.466/1999.

6)As per the orders in IA.No.1263/2001, dated 22.7.2002 in

OS.No.95/1995, OS.No.466/1999 is clubbed, to record common evidence in

OS.No.95/1995. Subsequently as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in

CRP.No.5820/2005, 1071/2006 and 1072/2006 all the three suits i.e.

OS.No.95/1995, OS.No.691/1996 and OS.No.466/1999 are clubbed and

common evidence is recorded in comprehensive of suit in OS.No.95/1995.

7)The admitted facts of the case are the defendants 1 to 7 and one

Nimmagadda Syam Prasad who is the 5th defendant in OS.No.466/1999 are the sons and the plaintif, defendants 8 to 10 are the daughters of one Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and Venkataravamma. The 18th defendant is the son of the 3rd defendant, 20th defendant is wife and 19th defendant is the daughter of the 5th defendant in OS.No.95/1995.

8)The case of the plaintif (10th defendant in OS.No.466/09) is their mother died intestate on 3.10.1989 and she was the absolute owner of item No.1 of plaint schedule property having acquired the same with her own Sridhana property. Their father also died on 3.10.1992 and he was the owner of the item Nos. 2 to 6 of schedule property besides cash and other movables. After the death of their mother Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, her entire estate 6 devolved upon her husband i.e. their father, herself and the defendants 1 to 10 Under Hindu Succession Act and they got 1/12th share each and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the estate left by their mother

Venkataravamma. During her life time she let out the entire item No.1 of the plaint schedule building and she used to get the rent @Rs.6000/- per month.

From 3.10.1989 the 7th defendant has been collecting the rents. As on the date of filing of the suit the 7th defendant is liable to pay 1/12th share similarly he has also amounts S.B. Account in Syndicate Bank, Labbipet Branch,

Vijayawada in which also she has 1/12th share. She further pleaded items

Nos.2 to 6 are acquired by his father with ancestral nucleus and improved by him. Originally their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao got 8 sons i.e. defendants 1 to 7 and Syam Prasad and he left the house in the year 1970 without any information to his family till today or seen by him any of his kith and kin. As such she got 1/9th share and joint possession in the plaint schedule property. Therefore as he presumed to be died and his share devolved on their mother Venkataravamma. On the death of Venkatravamma, the share of her son Syam Prasad devolved upon her husband Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, herself and the defendant 1 to 10. As Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao has also got 1/108th share in the share of

Syamprasad and as such his share enlarged to 1/9th +10/108 herself and the defendants 1 to 10 got equal shares in the estate of Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao. Therefore, i.e. 1188/108 share. He further pleaded that 7 the amount of Rs.13,00,000/- is rent deposited by the Bank of Baroda (17th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 and 9th defendant in OS.No.466/99) and apart from the plaint schedule properties there are several joint family business concerns which are Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao News Agency,

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao & sons, Vijayawada, N.V.K.R. Advertising,

Vijayawada; Radha Krishna Service Station at Tadepalli, N.B.R. Prasad &

Brothers, Vijayawada and Monohar Krishna Service Station. The share of Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao devolved upon his daughters and sons equally. Though she demanded the defendants 1 to 10 to cooperate with her for partition and separate possession of the same they did not cooperate with her. On the other hand, the 7th defendant got issued a publication in Eenadu daily, dated 23.3.1993 to the efect that Venkatravamma has executed a will, on 10.12.1986 bequeathing her entire property in his favour which is not correct and it must be fabricated, concocted and forged one. Therefore, he got issued a notice, dated 23.2.1993 demanding the defendants 1 to10 to partition the same. Having received the same they did not issue any reply and kept quit. Again on 6.3.1993 he issued another notice as there are some typographical errors in the earlier notice, except the 1st defendant others acknowledged the same. The 7th defendant alone got issued reply notice on 17.3.1993 with all false allegations. The 11th defendant is tenant to item No.1, defendants 12 and 13 are the tenants of ground floor of item No.3, the 8 defendants 14 to 16 are the tenants in item No.4 and the 17th defendant is tenant in item No.4. Hence he filed the suit.

9)The version of the 1st defendant (plaintif in OS.No.466/99) is himself and the defendants 2,5,6,7 and Syamprasad purchased the item No.4 of the plaint schedule property (item No.1 in OS.No.466/99) under a registered sale deed,

dated 12.10.1971 for a valid consideration of Rs.55,000/- from one Palaparthi

Poornandam and others. Similarly himself and the defendants 2, 5, 6 and 7 (defendants 1 to 4 in OS.No.466/99) purchased the item No.5 (item No.2 in

OS.No.466/99) of the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed,

dated 31.1.1978 from Kasinadhuni Sambasivarao. Therefore, they are the joint

owners of the said property, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and they let out the item No.4 to the 14th defendant (8th defendant in

OS.No.466/99) and item No.5 is let out to the 17th defendant (9th defendant in

OS.No.466/99) The 5th defendant (2nd defendant in OS.No.466/99) has been

looking after the afairs of the building even without their consent since 6 years prior to the filing of the suit and also he let out the same without the consent of the other joint owners to some part of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property (Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/99) to the 15th defendant (6th defendant in OS.No.466.99) and 7th defendant in

OS.No.466/1999 and collecting the rents. He is also not rendering proper

accounts for the amounts collected by him and has been misappropriating the same for his own benefit. While so, in January, 1997 the 14th defendant (8th 9 defendant in OS.No.466/1999) vacated the premised in their occupation and kept the same under the lock. But they did not hand over the keys of the tenanted building. Subsequently they filed OS. No.1358/99 on the file of I

Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada for deposit of the keys. They used to credit the rents upto 31.12.1996 in the joint account of himself and other brothers i.e. the defendants 2, 5, 6 and 7 (defendants 2 to 4 in OS.No.466/99).

Similarly the 17th defendant (9th defendant in OS.No.466/1999) is in occupation of item No.5 of the plaint schedule property (item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/1999) since 1.4.1980 taking undue advantage of the situation did not even enhanced the rent from 7900/- as agreed by him. He has been depositing the rent to the credit of himself and other joint owners bearing Account No.3320 in 17thdefendant Bank (9th defendant in

OS.No.466/1999) and the amount is lying in the said account. Therefore he is

entitled for 1/6th share in the agreed rents in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property (item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/1999) as well

as 1/5th share in item No.5 of the plaint schedule property (item No.1 of the

plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/1999).

10)The 2nd defendant remained exparte.

11)The 3rd defendant (4th defendant in OS.No.699/96) filed written statement contending that their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao is native of Dokiparru village and from there he migrated to Machilipatnam and finally migrated to Vijayawada in or about 1937. Subsequently he started business with the income derived from the ancestral properties at Dokiparru 10 village of Krishna District. He being kartha of the joint family used to look after the same for and on behalf of the joint family. Thereafter, he disposed of the ancestral properties and with the said income he developed the business, with the income from the ancestral nucleus he developed the financial position of the family and acquired the properties i.e. item No.1 to 6 of the plaint schedule properties. He further pleaded that item No.1 of plaint schedule property is purchased by his father in the name of his wife Venkatravamma. In fact the name of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao i.e. mother of the plaintif and defendants 1 to 10 is Venkatrama Manoharam but not

Venkataravamma. It is nothing but Benami transaction. Therefore, though the said property was purchased in her name, the afairs of the said property were looked after by their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao being

Kartha of the joint family. Being coparceners, the defendants 1, 2, 4 to 7 and

Syam Prasad and their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao got each 1/9th share in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. However, the item

No.4 is purchased in the name of the defendants 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and Syam Prasad whose where abouts’ are not known even by the date of purchase of the said property and the item No.5 was purchased in the name of the defendants 1, 2,5, 6 and 7 by their father. Item No.6 of the plaint schedule property is purchased in the name of their father and in the names of the defendants 5, 6, 7 and Nimmaggadda Subrahmanya Prasad i.e. son of the 2nd defendant.

Hence item Nos.4 and 5 (item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property in 11

OS.No.466/99) also are joint family properties and he is being the coparcener

is having 1/9th share in the said two items also.

12)The 4th defendant remained exparte.

13)For the sake of convenience and understanding the version of the 7th defendant is mentioned before the version of the 5th defendant.

The written statement filed by 7th defendant (Plaintif in OS.No.691/1996 and the 4th defendant in OS.No.466/99) is adopted by the 6th defendant (3rd defendant in OS.No.466/99). He pleaded that their mother Venkatravamma was the absolute owner of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and she enjoyed the same, during her life time. On 10.12.1986 she executed a will in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing the said property and some other properties in his favour. The said will is within the knowledge of all her children including the plaintif and also her husband Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao. As per the said will after her death he took possession of the same and her other properties and has been enjoying the same. Item Nos.

2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties are the self acquired properties of their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and he never treated them as joint family properties. The said Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao has been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties till his death on 3.10.1992. Their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao executed a

Will on 7.3.1990 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing all his properties in his favour to the knowledge of the plaintif and his other children.

Therefore after the death of their father, he took the same and enjoying the 12 same. Similarly the item No.6 of the plaint schedule property was purchased by Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, Nimmagadda Subramanya Prasad i.e. the son of the 2nd defendant, defendants 5, 6 and 7 jointly. As such their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao has got 1/5th share in item No.6 of the plaint schedule property. Under the said Will, he bequeathed his 1/5th share in item No.6 of the plaint schedule property to the 4th defendant, as such the plaintif has no right in item No.6 of the plaint schedule property. He further pleaded that item No.4 of the plaint schedule property is self acquired property of the defendants 1, 2, 5, 6, himself and Syamprasad. The 1/6th joint share of Syam Prasad devolved on their mother Venkatravamma which is bequeathed to him. Hence, the plaintif has no share in the said item also. He denied the other allegations in the plaint as to her share in the plaint schedule property and also denied the version of the defendants 5, 19 and 20 in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property.

14)As the plaintif in OS.No.691/1996 in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property he pleaded at the request of the 5th defendant, who is the 1st defendant therein, has been residing in the property. Thus by the time of death of their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao the 1st defendant has been staying in the said item. After his death when he demanded him to vacate and deliver the property by virtue of the will executed by their father, he requested to allow him to continue in the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs.3000/- and continued in the possession as a tenant. The tenancy 13 commenced from month to month commencing from 1st day of calendar month. He paid the monthly rents regularly till October, 1995 and from

November, 1995 onwards he committed willful default in payment of monthly rents. As he wants to have the building for his own use, he issued a notice,

dated 9.8.1996 terminating the tenancy ending by 31.8.1996 but the 5th

defendant/1st defendant therein got it returned with false endorsement and he did not vacate the same. Therefore, he is entitled to evict him and also the defendants 2 and 3 therein (the defendants 19 and 20 in OS.No.95/95).

15)The 5th defendant (1st defendant in OS.No.691/1996 and 2nd defendant in

OS.No.466/1999) pleaded that item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is the

joint family property and it is acquired from out of joint family funds and kept in the name of their mother Late Smt.Nimmagadda Venkatravamma as benami. Item No.2 is no way connected to the joint family or to any of the parties and it is excluded from the plaint schedule property. Their family had business and though the properties of their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao are mostly self acquired, but all the properties are treated as joint family properties. Since he attained adult hood he had to enable his parents to bring up all the children in a manner befitting the status of the family.

Keeping in view of the troubles which his father was facing in order to bring up all the 12 children, he discontinued his education and plunged into the family business. Thus toiled hard to the extent possible. He married 20th defendant in 1968. At the time, as per their custom her parents gave a sum of 14

Rs.40,000/- in cash towards Pasupu Kumkuma in addition to certain other landed properties. The said amount of Rs.40,000/- was entrusted to their father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, who utilized the same for joint family purpose and in consideration thereof he gave item No.2 of the plaint schedule property to the 20th defendant in the year 1982 itself in the presence of her parents, himself, other family members, relatives and friends of the family. Subsequently at the time of marriage of his daughter i.e., 19th defendant which was celebrated in the year 1992, the same was given to her towards her Pasupu Kumkuma. The will executed by Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao is not a valid and genuine, it is forged and fabricated and it is not executed in a sound and disposing state of mind. Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property belongs to the joint family properties and item Nos. 4 and 5 belong to himself, defendants 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7and as such the plaintif and other defendants are not entitled for any share therein. He further pleaded that he never collected any rents from the 13th defendant and it is the 1st defendant herein used to collect the rents from him. Except Radha Krishna

Service Station, Tadepalli and Vijayawada there are no other business as contended by the plaintif. There is no landlord and tenant relationship between himself and the 7th defendant (plaintif in OS.No.691/96), he never paid any rent to him much less Rs.3000/-. He is not entitled for any arrears of rent and the quit notice, dated 9-8-1996 issued by the 7th defendant is not valid under law. Hence the suit filed by the 7th defendant in OS.No.691/96 is 15 liable to be dismissed. He further pleaded that the 1st defendant (Plaintif in

OS.No.466/99) himself played an active role and got properties leased out to

the defendants 14, 15 and 17(the defendants 6, 8 and 9 in OS.No.466/99). He further pleaded that the 1st defendant (plaintif in OS.No.466/1999) got himself divided from the family properties though in fact he has to shoulder the responsibilities for the properties that remained joint. As per the arrangement arrived among them he is entitled to collect the rents from the 7th defendant in

OS.No.466/99 and can appropriate the same.

16)Though the 20th defendant filed written statement separately which is adopted by the 19th defendant (2nd defendant in OS.No.691/96) the same is on the lines of the written statement of the 5th defendant.

17)The defendants 8 to 13 remained exparte.

18)The 14th defendant (the 8th defendant in OS.No.466/1999) pleaded that their bank taken the ground floor of the building (item No.4 of the plaint schedule property) for its branch with efect from 1.4.1977 from the defendants 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 and it has been extended from time to time by mutual consent. While so on 25.11.1996 they sent notice to the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7, stating that tenancy is terminated with efect from 31.12.1996 and accordingly they vacated the premises on 31.12.1996 and called upon them to come to the said building for collecting the keys and take possession of the same. It was duly acknowledged by the defendants 1, 2, 6 and 7, but the notice sent to the 5th defendant is returned with an endorsement not claimed.

However, the 1st defendant authorized the defendants 6 and 7 by his letter, 16

dated 16.1.1997 jointly or individually to take possession of the premises. The

2nd and 6th defendants also gave authorization letters to the 7th defendant to take possession of the premises. Further the plaintif got issued a registered notice to him confirming the above facts for which he issued a suitable reply,

dated 24.7.1997 informing the plaintif that the authorization from the 5th

defendant is also required and in view of the conflicting versions, that all the authorization letters should be attested by notary public, but the 1st defendant has not given any such authority as required by them and they did not come jointly to receive the keys from him. On the other hand prior to 9.8.1996 the 7th defendant sent a registered notice to the defendants 1, 2, 5 and 6 and also other tenants for partition of the properties etc. and also directed not to deliver possession of the tenanted premises or handover keys of the tenanted premises to the 5th defendant. Hence on 24.7.1997 they sent a reply under those circumstances they were constrained to file Inter Pleader suit in

OS.No.1358/1999 on the file I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada. As

they already vacated the premises, there is no landlord and tenant relationship between them and deposited the rents before the court in the said suit. They also paid all the arrears of rent till 31.12.1996 in the current account No.2 of the Babu Rajendra Prasad and others as per the usual practice. The said suit was decreed and as per the directions of the court the keys were delivered to the 6th defendant.

19)The defendants 15, 16 and 18 remained exparte.

17

20)The 17th defendant (9th defendant in OS.No.466/99) pleaded that he has taken item No.5 of the plaint schedule property from Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao on lease. After his death they are depositing the monthly rent in the account of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in view of the family disputes among the family members of late Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao. It is not necessary party to the suit. The plaintif has no cause of action against it and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.

21. Basing on the above pleadings, the then preceding officer settled the following issues for trial in OS.No.95/1995

1) Whether the deceased Venkataravamma was the absolute owner of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and if it is so, the will, dated 10.12.1986 is true, valid and binding on the plaintif?

2) Whether the items No.2 to 5 of the schedule are the ancestral properties of Late Venkata Krishna Rao?

3)Whether the Will, dated 7.3.1990 in favour of D7 is true, valid and binding on the plaintif?

4)Whether the item No.5 is the self acquired property of D1, D2, D5 to D7?

5) Whether the D17 is a necessary party to this suit?

6)Whether the plaintif is entitled to the partition of the property as prayed for?

7)Whether the plaintif is entitled for the mesne profits as claimed?

8)Whether the plaintif is entitled for the future profits?

9) To what relief?

On 8-6-05 Addl. Issue were framed as per the orders in IA.No.1542/2004 and IA.No.163/2005 after impleding the 19th and 20th defendants respectively.

1)Whether item no.2 of schedule property was gifted to Smt. Nimmagadda Syamala Devi in 1982?

18

On 13-12-2006 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders in

IA.No.983/2005 after amending the plaint.

1)Whether item no.6 is also joint family property under D6 entitled to possession or not?

2)Whether the plaintif is not entitled to claim any share in the joint 1/5th share of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in item No.6 of plaint schedule property or not?

3)Whether the suit is properly valued or not?

ii)The then preceding officer settled the following issues for trial in

OS.No.O.S.691/1996

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover Rs.36,000/- being arrears of rent from November, 1995 to October, 1996?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled to evict the defendant from suit property?

3)Whether the will dated 7-3-90 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

4)Whether the suit property was gifted to Syamala Devi, W/o. Respondent in 1982?

5)Whether the quit notice is valid?

6)To what relief?

On 8.6.2005 Addl. Issue was framed as per the orders in IA.No.1076 / 2004 and 1541/2004 after impleding the defendants 2 and 3 respectively

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to seek eviction of defendants from the schedule property?

iii) The then preceding officer settled the following issues for trial in

OS.No.O.S.466/99

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to the partition of item nos.1 and 2 of the schedule properties as prayed for?

2)Whether the 7th defendant is liable to render accounts as prayed for?

3)To what relief?

19

On 2-7-2003 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders in

IA.No.2210/2002 after impleading the 10th defendant.

1)Whether the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property in nature?

2)Whether D5 is no more under law?

3)Whether the plaintif is entitled to a share in the plaint schedule property?

On 29-3-2012 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders, in

IA.No.2210/2002 after impleading the 10th defendant.

1)Whether the defendants 10 and 11 have got any right and entitled to claim any share in the plaint schedule properties?

2)Whether the defendants 10 and 11 are necessary and proper parties to the suit?

22)During the course of trial, before clubbing with suit in OS.No.95/1995 on behalf of the plaintif, PW1 and PW2 are examined and Exs.A1 to A31 are marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 to DW8 are examined and Exs. B1 to B196 are marked in OS.No.95/1995.

23)During the course of trial, before clubbing with suit in O.S.No.95/1995 on behalf of the plaintif, PW1 is examined and Exs.A1 to A40 are marked in

OS.No.691/1996.

24Heard both sides and defendant 6 and 7 and 14th defendant filed written arguments also.

25.ISSUE No.1 (in OS.No.95/1995):

1) Whether the deceased Venkataravamma was the absolute owner of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and if it is so, the will, dated 10.12.1986 is true, valid and binding on the plaintif?

i)The version of the plaintif is their mother Venkatravamma was the original owner of the property of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property having acquired the same with her Sridhana and she died intestate leaving behind them.

20 ii)According to the plaintif, the defendants 6 and 7, item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is the absolute property of their mother

Venkataravamma. But according to the defendants 3 and 5 it is purchased by

Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in the name of his wife

Venkataravamma as benami. According to the 3rd defendant all the properties are acquired from the income derived by her landed property. Whereas according to the 5th defendant though the properties are self acquired properties of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao but they are treated as joint family properties.

iii)In order to shore up his contention by way of affidavit filed in lieu of his chief-examination while reiterating her version she got marked the

Exs.A1 to A31. In Ex.A1 notice, dated 23.2.1993 and she pleaded the same with regard to the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. During the cross examination by DW5, PW1 categorically stated that her mother purchased the item No.1 with the amount derived her by selling her landed property. As culled out from the evidence adduced by the parties and cross examination item No.1 of the plaint schedule property purchased by their mother

Venkataravamma under Ex.B8 sale deed, dated 22.9.1969. In order to shore up her contention that their mother got Stredhana property from the income from it she purchased the item No.1 the plaintif produced Exs.A28 and A29 (Exs.B94 and B95) sale deeds, dated 5.4.1965 executed by Venkataravamma and her sister. In fact Ex.B94 sale deed, dated 5.4.1965 is one of the sale deeds executed by their mother is produced by DW8 i.e. the 5th defendant himself. As could be seen from the recitals in Ex.B94 sale deed and the said document shows the said property is devolved on the mother of the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10 and her sister from their parents. It may be a fact that it is elicited during the cross examination of PW1 by the 3rd defendant that on the reverse of Ex.A8 postal acknowledgement there is an endorsement to the 21 efect that the consideration was paid by the husband of Venkataravamma.

But by itself it cannot be said that the property is purchased by Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao as Benami.

iv)On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7, contended Exs.B21 to B25, are the income tax assessment orders filed by

Late Venkataravamma from 1983 to 1991 she showed item No.1 as her property in her income tax returns and he also showed the rent from it in her income tax returns. This itself probablises the property was her absolute property. Moreover Ex.B25 was submitted by Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao on behalf of his wife, who died on 3.10.1989. In Ex.B25 there is a note that the assessee is died on 3.10.1989 therefore, the rental income ofered only upto September, 1989.

v)DW1 and DW2 [1st defendant and 6th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 and DW1 is plaintif and DW2 is the 3rd defendant in OS.No.466/99] deposed on the lines of their version by way of their respective affidavits filed in lieu of their chief examination.

vi)It may be a fact that it is elicited from Ex.B24 and B25 are the income refund orders for the assessment years 1989-1990 and 1990-1991,

dated 14.3.1991 do not bear the signatures of Venkataravamma, but it cannot

be ignored that it bears acknowledgment from the income tax officer.

Moreover Exs.B21 and B22 are the income tax assessment orders of

Smt.N.Venkatravamma for the assessment years 1986-1987 and 1987-1988 bears the signatures of Venkatramma. Therefore, the filing of the income tax returns by showing the income of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property as her separate property coupled with Exs,A24 and A25 and B8 proves Item No.1 22 of the plaint schedule property is absolute of property of the mother of the plaintif.

vii)Be it noted that the plaintif also examined PW2 and he is cross examined on behalf of the plaintif, but subsequently when he was recalled for the purpose of cross examination on behalf of the 3rd defendant as he did not turn up and the plaintif filed a memo stating that she could not secure him, therefore her chief examination affidavit is eschewed. But it will not throw away her evidence in her cross examination conducted by some of the contesting defendants. Since some facts are elicited during his cross examination. The then Preceding Officer while passing the orders on the docket she categorically mentioned ‘chief affidavit is only eschewed’ and not the entire evidence.

viii)The very fact that after demise of Venkataravamma her husband

Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao filed returns on her behalf itself probablises that the property never treated as joint family property. Therefore, this proves item No.1 of the property is the absolute property of their mother of the plaintif.

ix)At this juncture it is here pertinent to mention the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7 (7th defendant is the plaintif in

OS.No.691/1996 and 3rd and 4th defendants in OS.No.466/99) that PW2 in her

chief examination deposed that Venkataravamma possessed one property.

Therefore, the evidence of PW2 is also proves that the item No.1 of the plaint 23 schedule property is the absolute property. But the evidence of chief examination of PW2 is eschewed on 5.11.2015. Therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration.

x)The defendants 3 and 5 contended that the property was purchased by Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao as binami in the name of his wife. But Exs.A28 and A29 are the sale deed shows she has some

Sridhana property from her parents. It is an admitted fact that

Venkataravamma has only one sister and they have no brothers. As such it probablises the version of the plaintif, defendants 6 and 7 that the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property (item No.4 of the plaint schedule property in

OS.No.466/199) is the absolute property of Venkataravamma.

xi)Though the 5th defendant (1st defendant in OS.No.691/1996 and 2nd defendant in OS.No.466/1999) as DW8 deposed on the lines of his version but the same is not substantiated. DW2 categorically deposed that there are no

Binami transactions in the family. Moreover, as the defendants 3, 19 and 20 did not come into witness box to depose on oath as to their version and make themselves available for cross-examination, therefore, their version cannot be taken into consideration especially when the version of the plaintif is substantiated by Exs.A28 and A29 to show she has source of income to purchase the property.

xii) DW2 and DW3 who are the defendants 6 and 7 by way of their respective affidavits categorically deposed that LateNimmagadda 24

Venkataravamma executed will on 10.12.1986 in a sound and disposing state of mind. They got marked the said will as Ex.B7. It is here apposite to mention that Ex.B7 is marked through DW1 during his cross examination. DW1 was cross examined by the defendants 5, 6, 7 by the plaintif at length. But later he was not turned up subsequently the 3rd defendant filed IA.No.1/2015 for cross examination of PW1 and PW2 and DW1 to DW8, but DW1 was not turned up. As such his chief examination was eschewed. But when the 1st defendant cross examined at length by the rival parties as well as the plaintif apart from the defendants 6 and 7 the admissions elicited during the cross examination of DW1 cannot be eschewed that is why it seems the then Preceding officer consciously mentioned his chief affidavit is eschewed and it is not the entire evidence is eschewed. Therefore, his evidence in the cross examination as not eschewed can be taken into consideration. Ex.B7 is the Will, dated 10.12.1986 marked through DW1 cross examination and he admitted that the said will is executed by their mother.

xiii)DW2 who is the 6th defendant categorically deposed that himself and his father are the attestors to the said will Ex.B7 executed by their mother.

It may be a fact that the evidence of DW2 is not verbatim as annunciated in 63 of Indian Succession Act. In S.A.Quddus Vs. S.Veerappa, Reported

in AIR 1994 Karn. 20 it is observed that the law does not emphasis

that the witness must use the language of the Section to prove the

required merits thereof.

25 xiv)However he categorically deposed that himself and his father and mother were present at the time of execution of will. He further categorically deposed after the contents in Ex.B7 will, dated 10.12.1986 were read over only the executant signed on it and he was present at that time. He further categorically deposed that the will is executed by the executants at her house.

It is elicited from him that the 1st two sheets are stamp papers and the remaining two papers on white paper. He further deposed that stamp papers show that they were purchased on 12.9.1986 but his evidence is that Ex.B7 was typed. However it is elicited from him that the date is mentioned in ink.

His evidence further goes to show that the stamp papers were purchased in advance initially a draft was prepared. He further deposed that he was not present at the time of preparing draft. But his evidence goes to show that the contents were read over to the executants in his presence and then he signed.

It is to be noted that the another attestor to Ex.B7 is none other than the father of the plaintif and defendants 1 to 10 and is no more. Therefore by examining DW2 there is a sufficient compliance of Section 63 of Indian

Evidence Act and Section 68 of Indian Succession Act. The plaintif,

DW2 and DW3 are cross examined as to discrepancy in the name of the mother of the plaintif and the defendants. Exs.A28 and A29 her name is mentioned as Venkata Manoharamma whereas Ex.B7 mentioned as

Venkatravamma. It is suggested to PW1 by DW3 her mother name is

Venkataravamma but not Venkata Manoharamma. But it may be noted that all 26 the parties categorically deposed that including the 5th defendant, DW1, DW3 she was called at Venkataravamma and Venkata Mahoharamma.

xv)Under Ex.B7 the mother of the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10 bequeathed the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property which is shown as A schedule and also all the amounts in her bank account N.S.S., fixed deposits under B schedule are bequeathed to her youngest son Nimmagadda Bhanu

Prasad (7th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 and the plaintif in OS.No.691/1996 and the 4th defendant in OS.No.466/1999) under C schedule i.e. gold, diamonds etc. bequeathed to her 4th daughter.

xvi)It may be a fact that there is no reference to other sons and also as to another son Syam Prasad leaving the house in Ex.B7 will. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7, the evidence of

DW3 i.e. 6th defendant goes to show that the 7th defendant is not settled and his evidence goes to show he completed B.Tech in the year 1986 that means by the time of execution of will he was pursuing studies, whereas he (DW3) completed his graduation in 1968 and since then he started his work as income tax practitioner besides he has petrol bunk and other business and his wife is also lecturer in Mary Stella College. The evidence of DW1 during cross examination by the 5th defendant (DW8) also goes to show by then all are doing their respective business. The 7th defendant is youngest of all of them and he alone was not settled in life by then. Therefore as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7 there is no suspicious 27 circumstances or improbability in bequeathing to the 7th defendant under

Ex.B7. Moreover she gave all her jewelry to her 4 daughters. The evidence of

DW2 and DW3 is corroborative that after the death of their mother on the 11th day their father disclosed about Ex.B7 will executed by their mother and moreover as per bequeath the C schedule properties were distributed among their 4 daughters. Ofcourse PW1 denied the said fact. Therefore, the 7th defendant examined the 9th defendant as DW6. By way of her affidavit she deposed that in June, 1987 when she had been to Vijayawada to her parents house in connection with the delivery of her 2nd issue who was born on July, 1987 her mother informed and showed the will, dated 10.12.1986 executed by her in the presence of her father. She further categorically deposed that in the said will she described the various items of jewelry totaling to 60 Sovereigns and also categorically deposed which item was given to the plaintif, herself and defendants 8 and 10. This evidence corroborates the evidence of DW2 and DW3. In the cross examination the will was showed to her about one month prior to her delivery. She deposed that on the 11th day after the death of her mother at about 3.30 P.M. the property was distributed among her sisters. She further deposed that as the 7th defendant is not at settled by then he bequeathed the house property to him. Her evidence in the cross examination by the plaintif further goes to show after gave amount to her and with the same he purchased the property at Vijayawada subsequent to marriage. Ofcourse PW1 though cross examined by the defendants 6 and 7 on 28 the lines her father purchased a site in her name and gave amounts to construct house she denied the same. But she gave evasive reply that she does not know her father purchased sites and got constructed houses for her sisters. It has to be observed that DW8 is none other than own sister of the defendants 7, 8 and 10. Had the mother has not shown the will and she has not received the gold items of her mother as deposed by her there is no reason for her to depose falsehood. It is suggested to her that the 7th defendant promised to give Rs.50,000/- to her to purchase the gold chain and ofcourse the same is not denied. But I do not find any probability in the said suggestion because had the 7th defendant simply promised to give Rs.50,000/- she depose falsehood because if the plaint schedule property is partitioned her share will be much more high. Therefore, the evidence of DW8 is also probablising the evidence of DW2 as to execution of Ex.B7 will.

xvii)It may be further noted that had they have not executed Ex.B7 will, there is no reason for the defendants 1 and 6 (DW1 and DW2) to admit the will who are none other than own brothers of the plaintif and 7th defendant because in the absence of such will they will also got share in item

No.1 of the plaint schedule property. It has to be seen that even the plaintif pleaded that their mother was in possession of her property till her death i.e.

3.10.1989 and he categorically deposed that from 3.10.1989 the 1st defendant is enjoying the property by collecting the rents from the tenants. This also probablises the will in acted upon.

29 xiii)It may be noted that though the defendants 6 and 7 contended by referring to Exs.B26 to B46 property tax receipts are in the name of

Venkataravamma and not in the name of Bhanu Prasad. But they are not much helpful to say they are pertain to item No.1 of the plaint schedule property as they do not bear door number and they bear only assessment number and assessment number is not mentioned in the plaint schedule. However as already stated even according to the plaintif from 3.10.1989 the 7th defendant is collecting the rents of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property i.e. since the death of their mother.

xix)In the light of my forgoing discussion this issue is answered affirmatively.

26)ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.2, dt. 8.6.2005 IN OS.NO.95/1995:-

2) Whether the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property was gifted to Smt.Nimmagadda Syamala Devi in 1982?

i)The plaintif categorically pleaded Syam Prasad left the house and since 1970 his whereabouts not known to anybody. Though the 1st defendant pleaded in his written statement as well as in the plaint in OS.No.466/99 that

Syam Prasad used to visit now and then his petrol bunk at Tadepalli but he also pleaded that he does not know his whereabouts since a long time and his address is also not available to anyone. The version of the 1st defendant that now and then he used to visit his (1st defendant) petrol bunk at Tadepalli the same is not substantiate because his chief affidavit is eschewed. In the cross examination which is held on 24.7.2003 he categorically stated his where 30 abouts’ are not known from 1970. His evidence is about 15 years back i.e. 15 years prior to 2003. DW2, DW3, DW5 as well as DW3 also admitted that since 1970 Syam Prasad where abouts are not known. In Ex.B47, dated 7.8.1993 the will executed by the father of the plaintif, defendants 1 to 10 also it is categorically recited by the father of the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10,

Syam Prasad left the house as bachelor on 10.10.1970. Therefore, it is an admitted fact that the where abouts of Syam Prasad are not known to the plaintif or defendants 1 to 10 or any of the relatives since more than 7 years prior to filing the suit. Under Section 108 of Indian Evidence Act, ifit is proved that a person has not heard by his who has naturally heard of him he had been not live, a presumption arises that he is not alive. When it is nobody’s case that Syam Prasad was alive. Hence this issue is answered affirmatively.

27)ISSUE Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 in OS.NO.691/96 AND ADDL. ISSUE No.1:

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover Rs.36,000/- being arrears of rent from November, 1995 to October, 1996?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled to evict the defendant from suit property?

4)Whether the suit property was gifted to Syamala Devi, W/o. Respondent in 1982?

5)Whether the quit notice is valid?

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to seek eviction of defendants from the schedule property?

For the sake of brevity and convenience in order to avoid repetition as the evidence that is to be appreciated is common, these issues are answered together.

31

i)The plaintif who is 7th defendant in OS.No.95/1995 as DW5 in his affidavit filed in lieu of his chief examination reiterated his version and deposed the 5th defendant started living in plaint schedule property (item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/95) with the permission of their father. After his death by virtue of will Ex.A4, dated 7.3.1990 he became the absolute owner of the same, therefore when he demanded the 5th defendant to vacate the premises he requested to continue as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.3000/-, accordingly paid rents upto October, 1995 and from November, 1995 onwards he committed default. Thereupon he issued Ex.A1 quit notice on 9.8.1996 terminating the tenancy by the end of 31.8.1996, but even thereafter he did not vacate the premises and he got it returned under Ex.A2. But in the cross examination he categorically deposed that there is no documentary evidence to show the defendant (the 5th defendant herein) paid the rents.

ii) The learned counsel for the plaintif in OS.No.691/1996 tried to impress upon the court that the defendants 19 and 20 did not come into witness box to prove their respective versions. Hence their version cannot be taken into consideration. It is admitted by DW8 that there is no document to show

Rs.40,000/- was given to his wife in lieu of Pasupukumkuma by her parents, that the said amount was entrusted to his father and the said house was given to their daughter (19th defendant). It is rightly contended by him that though the defendants 5, 19 and 20 pleaded, the said property was given in the presence of elders, relatives and friends but none of them were examined.

32

Their version is vague. The names of the relatives and friends are not mentioned. Moreover as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 7th defendant (Plaintif in OS.No.691/1996) as per Section 122 of Transfer of

Property Act gif of immovable property must be made voluntarily and without consideration. Moreover Section 123 of Transfer of Property Act postulates that for the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be efected by a registered instrument and attested by atleast two attestros. But in this case there is no such registered document. As such the defendants in

OS.No.691/1996 failed to prove their version. At the same time it cannot be

ignored that except the vague suggestion, the plaintif (7th defendant in

OS.No.95/95) also failed to prove landlord and tenant relationship.

iii)The learned counsel urged that even in the absence of proof of landlord and tenant relationship, the 7th defendant is entitled to claim item

No.2 as the absolute owner thereof and in pursuance of the answer to the issues in OS.No.95/95 he is entitled to claim delivery of possession of the same as held by the apex court by order dated 17.6.2005 passed in

C.R.P.No.2962/2004. When once the case of the defendants 5, 19 and 20 that item No.2 was given to the 20th defendant is false and untenable under law, the contention of the 7th defendant is to be accepted. The 7th defendant got issued Ex.A1 quit notice, which is marked in OS.No.691/1996 terminating the tenancy to the correct address which the 5th defendant (in OS.No.95/1995) got it returned with false postal endorsement. Hence notice is valid and there is 33 no proof of arrears of rents from November, 1996. Hence the plaintif in

OS.No.691/96 is entitled for the relief. But I am unable to find force in the

contention of the learned counsel for the plaintif in OS.No.691/96 simply because the defendant failed to prove his case that he is residing in the property as a owner when the plaintif (7th defendant in OS.No.95/1995) himself pleaded even during life time of his father, the defendant (5th defendant in OS.No.95/1995) is in possession of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property with permission it is for the plaintif (7th defendant) to prove the landlord and tenant relationship to get decree in OS.No.691/1996, if the plaintif (7th defendant in OS.No.95/95) failed to prove the landlord and tenant relationship, his remedy for eviction is not by virtue of Ex.A1 quit notice but the remedy is otherwise.

iv)It may be noted that admittedly the 7th defendant (Plaintif in

OS.No.691/1996) is an income tax assesses. As could be seen from the

contents in Ex.B22 to B25 which are income tax assessment orders show his mother showed the income from the rents from her property in her income tax returns. Had really the 7th defendant let out the property to the 5th defendant as a tenant and he paid the rents till October, 1995, the income tax returns of the 7th defendant for the said period certainly discloses the same. But the 7th defendant/plaintif did not choose to file any such document to prove his contention that there is landlord and tenant relationship between himself and the 5th defendant. Therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn Under 34

Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act. When the landlord and tenant relationship is not proved, the validity of Ex.A1 notice (in OS.No.691/1996) does not arise.

Hence these issues are answered negatively.

28)ISSUE NOS. 2, 3, 4, ADDL. ISSUES 1 AND 2 AND ISSUE NO.3 IN

OS.No.691/96 and ISSUE NO.1 IN OS NO.466/99 and ADDL. ISSUES

Nos. 1 and 3:

2)Whether the item Nos. 2 to 5 of the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Late Venkata Krishna Rao?

3)Whether the Will, dated 7.3.1990 in favour of D7 is true, valid and binding on the plaintif?

4)Whether the item Nos. 4 and 5 are the self acquired properties of D1, D2, D5 to D7?

1)Whether the item No.6 of the plaint schedule property is also joint family property under control and possession of D6 or not?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled to claim any share in the item No.6 of the plaint schedule property or not?

3)Whether the will dated 7-3-90 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled to the partition of item nos.1 and 2 of the schedule properties as prayed for?

2)Whether the 7th defendant is liable to render accounts as prayed for?

On 2-7-2003 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders in

IA.No.2210/2002 after impleading the 10th defendant, dated 2.7.2003.

1)Whether the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property in nature?

2)Whether D5 is no more under law?

3)Whether the plaintif is entitled to a share in the plaint schedule property?

On 29-3-2012 Addl. Issues were framed as per the orders in

IA.No.2210/2002 after impleading the 10th defendant, dated 2.7.2003.

35

1)Whether the defendants 10 and 11 have got any right and entitled to claim any share in the plaint schedule properties?

2)Whether the defendants 10 and 11 are necessary and proper parties to the suit?

For the sake of brevity and convenience in order to avoid repetition as the evidence that is to be appreciated is common, these issues are answered together.

i)The plaintif as PW1 reiterated her version in respect of items 2 to 6 of plaint schedule properties also. Similarly the defendants 5 to 7 deposed on the lines of their respective version as DW2, DW3 and DW8. In Ex.A1 legal notice, dated 23.2.1993 originally she claimed share in respect of item Nos. 1 to 5 contending that they are the own properties of their father Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao, improved by him but treated as joint.

Again she issued Ex.A11 modification notice to delete the said version and to substitute that the property left behind by Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna

Rao is not his property but own ancestral in nature and with ancestral nucleus he acquired and improved them. According to the 5th defendant item Nos. 2 and 3 are absolute properties of his father but treated as joint. Whereas the version of 3rd defendant is also that they are ancestral properties being purchased with ancestral nucleus. But according to the defendants 6 and 7 that they are the absolute properties of their father. Though the plaintif contended while issuing Ex.A11 modification notice as if the earlier version is typographical mistake describing the nature of the property cannot be treated as a typographical mistake but certainly it shows she improvised her case.

36 ii)The plaintif in order to substantiate her version that there is a ancestral property got marked Exs.A26 and A27 sale deeds (DW8 also filed copies of the same documents which are marked as Exs.B93 and 95). Ex.A26 is the sale deed, dated 4.1.1952 in favour of 3rd parties for an extent Ac.1.92 cents land at their native village at Dokiparru executed by Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao and the defendants 1 to 5 who are undivided sons.

iii)As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7 the recitals in the documents goes to show the property covered under the said property is purchased by executant by late Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao who is the father of the plaintif and the defendants 1 to 10 on 22.1.1948. Ex.A27 dated 22.3.1964 executed by late Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao in favour of the 3rd parties. The recitals in the said document clearly shows that part of the property covered under the document is acquired by the vendor. By virtue of patta, dated 18.4.1928 issued by

Deputy Thasilar, Pamarru and the remaining extent purchased by him on 20.4.1946 from one Adusumilli Nageswara Rao under registered sale deed.

Therefore, Exs.A26 and A27 do not probablises that there were any ancestral nucleus and the said documents in fact show the said property was absolute property of the father of the plaintif and the defendants 1 to 10. During her cross examination by the defendants 6 and 7 PW1 categorically stated her father was the original owner of the property covered under Exs.A26 and A27.

37 iv)Though the 3rd defendant contended the plaint schedule properties were purchased with ancestral nucleus and cross examined the plaintif, DW1 and DW2, he did not choose to come into witness box to depose on oath as to his version and make himself available for cross-examination. Therefore, the said version cannot be taken into consideration.

v)The 1st defendant is eldest son his evidence goes to show he was born in 1934. His evidence during the cross examination of PW1 goes to show in 1937 itself their father shifted to Vijayawada and worked as a clerk and in or about 1941 or 1942 he started business. The evidence of 5th defendant as

DW8 goes to show his father started business and subsequently he started joining the sons as partners. Though he stated in or about 1960 or 1961 partnership among defendants 1 and 2 and their father started but he categorically deposed that he does not know when they were made as partners. The 3rd defendant did not come into witness box. Therefore his version that the property is the ancestral property cannot be taken into consideration. In fact, DW1 during the cross examination of DW6 and DW7 categorically testified that their father is the absolute owner of the property covered under Exs.A26 and A27. As such there is no probable evidence to show there is any ancestral nucleus.

vi)The evidence of DW8 in the cross examination of the defendants 6 and 7 goes to show that his father has Ac.2.00 land in Dokiparru village. It may be the property covered under Ex.A26 and he categorically deposed that 38 the amount derived from the said land is not sufficient to meet the expenses of family hence his father used to borrow the amount. Therefore, his father started business.

vii)Though the defendants 6 and 7 deposed that in 1967 there was family settlement but it is not supported by any documentary evidence.

However, DW1, DW2, DW3 and DW8 also stated in 1960 or 1961 the 1st defendant started the business. In fact the evidence of DW1 and DW8 goes to show in or about 1984 one petrol bunk Radha Krishna Service station was exclusively given to the 1st defendant and the other sons relinquished their rights. DW2 also admitted the said fact. DW1 testified he divided from his father in 1961. The evidence elicited from the cross examination of PW1, DW1 to DW8 goes to show there are other businesses, partnership business by name N.V.K.R. Agencies, Manohar Krishna Service station which is now come to the 6th defendant and N.V.K.R. Advertising agency. All these are admittedly partnership firms. Exs.B66 to B69 are the income tax assessment orders for 1982-1983 to 1985-1986 of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. All the assessments order the status of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao is shown individually and he showed the property and income from N.V.K.R.

Agencies and the income from item Nos. 2 and 3 also in his individual capacity.

It is not the case of the plaintif, the defendants 3 or 5 that at any time Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao submitted his income tax returns in the capacity of kartha of joint family. He always paid income tax in his individual 39 capacity showing the income from partnership business as a partner itself shows that no property was treated as joint family property.

viii)There is no dispute that the sale deeds pertaining to item Nos. 2 and 3 stands in the name of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B15 is the original sale deed pertaining to item No.3 which is in his name and

Ex.B66 to B69 assessment orders further corroborated the same. In order to prove Ex.B47 will, dated 7.3.1990 said to be executed by their father for his properties DW4, DW5 and DW7 are examined.

ix)DW4 is the son of the scribe (who drafted) is examined to identify the signature of his father Allanki Venkata Ramana on Ex.B47 will. Ex.B49 is the death certificate of Allanki Venkata Ramana, dated 22.5.1991. During his cross examination the plaintif got marked Ex.A22 and Ex.A23. Ex.A22 is the signature of the scribe to Ex.B47 Will on the Xerox copy of deposition of the scribe as DW8 in another matter. Ex.A23 is the signature of the scribe on the

Xerox copy of the will in dispute. It is elicited from him that in Ex.A22 his father signed as Allanki Venkataramana Vralu and in Ex.A23 the signature is as

Allanki Venkata Ramana. But he categorically stated that he used to sign in both ways sometimes as Allanki Venkataramana and sometimes as Allanki

Venkata Ramana Vralu. Exs.A22 and A23 did not disclose any diference except on additional word “Vralu” under Ex.A22. As could be seen from the description of the deposition DW8 is an Advocate as such he has no reason to speak false hood had Ex.B47 does not contain the signature of his father.

40

x)DW5 Tejomurtula Narasimha Murthy is an identifying witness at the time of registration of Ex.B47 will. He deposed that on 7.3.1990 when

Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao presented his will for registration

before Sub Registrar Office, Gandhinagar he was present. He categorically

deposed that before the Sub Registrar Office, the testator Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao admitted that he executed the said will and put his signature. Then he signed before Sub Registrar Office, as identifying witness along with other witnesses. He further testified that the Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao put his signature as well as thumb impression on the said will before the Sub Registrar. During cross examination the counsel for the plaintif obtained his specimen handwriting and got it marked as Ex.A25. But it is no way helpful and material. Though his specimen writing Ex.A24 when compared with his signature on Ex.B47 there are some minor variations found between the two, but it cannot be ignored that Ex.B47 is dated 7.3.1999 and

Ex.B23 is obtained on 10.11.2003. Thus there is a gap of 13 years, it is well known that the signatures and handwritings keep on changing in the course of time. It is further elicited from him that one of the attestor to Ex.B47 is his typist P.M.Sarma. He further testified that his full name is Markendaya Sarma but he does not know his complete surname. As could be seen from him initially the signature of the 2nd attestor on the photocopy of the will is marked as Ex.A25 but immediately the preceeding officer made a note that the counsel for the plaintif pleaded the last page of the photo stat copy of will and 41 asked the witness to identify whether the particular signature written in pen on the said Photostat copy is that of P.M.Sarma, who is the typist of the witness, but as it was recently written with a pen on the Photostat copy of the will, the question is rejected. Therefore, Ex.A25 cannot be considered. Ex.B48 the death certificate of 2nd attestor Markendaya Sarma shown he died on 22.5.1991.

xi)DW7 Nandigam Nageswara Rao is examined as 1st attestor to

Ex.B47. His evidence goes to show that he got acquaintance with Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao through the 6th defendant. He deposed that one day prior to his execution of Ex.B47 will Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao wanted him to come to the Sub Registrar Office, Gandhinagar, to attest the will, which he intend to execute on the following day. Accordingly he went there they all met in the office of the document writer

A.Venkataramana which is situated opposite to Sub Registrar’s office. It is his evidence is that Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao gave instructions to the scribe Venkata Ramana to prepare the draft and after preparing the draft he wanted him to get it typed and when the scribe got it typed and read over, then Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao also read it and satisfied then put his signature on the will in their presence. Then he wanted himself and another who are already there to attest the same and both of them attested in his presence. The testator wanted the scribe to sign, then the scribe wanted 42 to put his signature. Thus the evidence of DW7 proves the execution of Will in accordance with Section 63 of Indian Succession Act.

xii)It is elicited from DW7 he worked as an accountant in a firm

Srivenkateswara Engineering Contract and he knows the family of Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao through the 6th defendant. His evidence goes to show that as an accountant he used to attend the office of Brahmaiah and company. He denied the suggestion given by the counsel for the 5th defendant that the 6th defendant brought a drafted document to him and asked him to sign in the document as an attestor and at his request he signed on it. Ofcourse during the cross examination of plaintif he stated that he does not know the total members of the family. But it is an admitted fact that the 6th defendant is an income tax practitioner and he was working in the

Brahmaiah and Company which is a chartered accountant firm. Therefore, there is no improbability in DW7 knowing the 6th defendant and the testator.

There is no reason for DW7 to speak falsehood. Though DW4, DW5 and DW7 are subjected to cross examination nothing worth was elicited to shatter their evidence. DW1, DW2 and DW6 are not benefices under the wills. In fact,

DW6 will get share in item Nos. 1 to 3 had her parents died intestate.

Therefore, there is no reason for her to support the wills which benefits the 7th defendant. Thus by unshattered evidence of DW7 who is an attestor to

Ex.B47, the defendants 6 and 7 proved that late Late Nimmagadda Venkata

Krishna Rao executed Ex.B47 will in a sound and disposing state of mind. The 43 evidence of PW1 goes to show her mother and father died all of sudden due to heart problem, prior to that they are hale and healthy. Therefore, it proves that

Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao executed the will in a sound and disposing state of mind. Under Ex.B47 will he bequeathed item Nos. 2 and 3 of the plaint schedule properties and also undivided 1/5th share in item No.6 to the 7th defendant. It is recited in the will that he is a freedom fighter and thus getting pension from the Government. He further recited that he did business of Khadi along with his sons, later on 31.9.1961 they divided the said business and got it assessed in income tax department, since then himself and his sons are doing their respective business and looking after their respective properties, therefore whatever the properties are acquired are his self acquired properties. He also recited as to his another son Syam Prasad leaving the house on 10.10.1970, that he performed the marriage of all the daughters by giving all lanchanams and all the sons and daughters are well settled but the 7th defendant is financially not much sound when compared to other sons and all other sons are financially well settled. Even the fact elicited from the defendants 1 and 2 and DW1 to DW3 goes to show by 7.3.1990, the defendants 1, 6, and 5 are already well settled in their respective business.

DW1 categorically deposed that during the cross examination in 1984 other partners i.e. other brothers relinquished their share in Radha Krishna service station to him. The evidence of DW2 goes to show he is an income tax practitioner from 1969. Apart from that he has also business and he has 44 petrol bunk, Manohar Krishna service station. It is also admitted fact that the defendants 2 and 5 have also got business. The evidence of DW3 goes to show that he completed his graduation in Engineering in 1988. Therefore by the date of execution of Ex.B47 it is only the 7th defendant who was not financially well settled when compared to other children. Therefore, there is no probability or suspicious circumstances in execution of Ex.B47 will. While answering the issue No.1 in OS.No.95/95 as already stated though PW1 denied that her father gave landed property and also financially helped for construction of the house, DW6 who is the 9th defendant categorically admitted that her father gave land and also financially supported for construction of house. This evidence of DW6 fortifies the recital in Ex.47 will.

xiii)In respect of his movable properties the testator categorically mentioned he has one diamond ring, rubi and 6 soverigns of Gold chain and he bequeathed the said jewelry to the 7th defendant. In respect of cash lying to his credit in his banks and LIC he made arrangement that out of the said cash

Rs.1,00,000/- shall be kept for philanthropy. He further mentioned that his son

Syam Prasad has share in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property and in respect of 1/6th share of Syam Prasad he made an arrangement that his share of amount shall be used for the education of poor children. The validity of leaving aside the said clause at this juncture I would like to refer this clause to prove the genuineness of the will. He not only made arrangement for the 7th defendant, but also made arrangement for philanthropy works this shows the 45 genuineness of the will. So far as the 3rd defendant is concerned he did not choose to cross examine DW4 to DW8. Therefore, so far the 3rd defendant is concerned their evidence is remained unchallenged.

xiv)The foregoing discussion proves Ex.B47 Will is executed by Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in a sound and disposing state of mind and by virtue of Ex.B47 Will, the 7th defendant because the absolute owner of item

Nos. 2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties.

xv)Exs.B185 and 183 are the mutation endorsements, dated 20.9.1993 in respect of item Nos. 2 and 3 respectively also shows Ex.B47 will is acted upon.

xvi)Now coming to items 4 and 5 (item Nos. 1 and 2 in OS.No.499/96) of the plaint schedule properties Exs.B88 and B89 (the certified copies of said sale deeds are marked through DW1 as Exs.B1 and B2 and his chief examination eschewed are the sale deeds pertaining to the same. The evidence of DW1 to DW3 and DW8 supported by Ex.B88 shows it is purchased in the name of the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 and Syam Prasad and Ex.B89 shows item No.5 is purchased by the defendants 1 to 6. It is an admitted fact that by the time of both the sale deeds, the 7th defendant was minor and represented by his father.

xvii)The learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7 contended that one of the purchasers by name Syam Prasad of item No.4 of the plaint 46 schedule property was not known from 1970. But Ex.B88 is dated 12.10.1971.

However he tried to impress upon the court that it is purchased by the purchasers in their individual capacity out of their share of income from partnership firm Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao & Sons. However the defendants have not filed any partnership deed pertaining to Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao & Sons. But the recitals in Ex.B88 shows that the consideration is paid by way of cheques in the name of Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and sons. As already stated though the partnership deed is not filed it shows that the property is purchased for the benefit of the purchasers mentioned in the document but not as joint family.

As already stated Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao always used to file his returns in his individual capacity but not as Kartha of any joint family.

Moreover as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7, the 14th defendant who is the tenant of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property pleaded that they took lease from the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 from 1.4.1997 and rent is being deposited in the account of Babu Rajendra Prasad and brothers. That shows the property is purchased for the benefit of individuals but not for the benefit of joint family.

xviii) DW1 is cross examined that in 1993 he gave paper publication along with the 3rd defendant that their parents died intestate and similarly he also gave report against his father under Exs.B96, 98 and 99 and the private complaint filed by the 1st defendant against his father in OS.No.261/1999 47

Under Ex.B97 alleging that he is misappropriating the amounts collected from item No.4 of the plaint schedule property. It is elicited from DW2 in 1982 they gave power of attorney to their father to collect the rents for item Nos. 4 and 5 of the plaint schedule property. Had the properties are purchased as joint properties, the question of giving power of attorney to Late Nimmagadda

Venkata Krishna Rao does not arise as he will be kartha of joint family.

Moreover, this shows that the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 are joint owners of item

No.5 of the plaint schedule property.

xix)Be it noted that for item No.4 of the plaint schedule property,

Syam Prasad’s is a joint owner. But his whereabouts are not known from 1970.

Hence he is presumed to be died by 1977 and 1978. Ex.B47 as discussed supra late Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao made an arrangement with regard to the share of Syam Prasad in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property. But it is to be noted that Syam Prasad presumed to be died by the end 1977 or 1978 where as the mother of the plaintif died on 18.10.1988.

Therefore, Syam Prasad is presumed to be predeceased his mother.

Admittedly, he left the house as a bachelor. Therefore, the mother is only class-I heir of Syam Prasad. As such the property bequeathed to Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in respect of item No.4 for the share of

Syam Prasad is not valid. However under Ex.B7 the mother has not made any arrangement in respect of the share of Syam Prasad in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property, her 1/6th share will be devolved on the plaintif, the 48 defendants 1 to 10 and her husband Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao that means the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10 will get 1/72th share each.

The income of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property shall be given to the other joint owners i.e. the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 for maintenance of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property and to help the education of poor children.

Thus the defendants 1, 2, 5 and 10 each will get 1/6th share + 1/72th share i.e.

13/72th in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property. In item No.5 of the plaint schedule property, the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 will have 1/5th share.

xx)Coming to item No.6 of the plaint schedule property Exs.A30 and

A31 shows it is purchased by Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao i.e.

father of the plaintif, the defendants 1 to 10 and one Subrahmanya Prasad,

S/o. the 2nd defendant. Being minors the 7th defendant is represented by his father Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and Subrahmanya Prasad is represented by 2nd defendant. As already discussed supra, the properties are purchased for the benefit of individuals but not as joint. Therefore in item

No.6 also the plaintif as well as the defendants 2, 4, 8 to 10 will not have any share. As per Ex.B47 the share of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao devolved on DW3 i.e. 7th defendant. The 7th defendant deposed that himself,

Subrahmanya Prasad i.e. son of the 2nd defendant and 6th defendant gave the property to the 4th defendant and got marked the certified copies of gift deed, dated, 26.7.1993 which is marked as Ex.B188. Therefore, the learned counsel for the plaintif, the defendants 6 and 7 contends that the 5th defendant has 49 1/5th share in item No.6 of the plaint schedule property and remaining 4/5th share belongs to the 4th defendant. It may be noted that item No.6 is added subsequently and subsequent to adding of item No.6, the defendants 6 and 7 filed their additional written statement. But in the additional written statement they did not mention about Ex.B188. Therefore, whatever it be one of the joint owner by name Subrahmanya Prasad is not party to the suit. As stated the plaintif has no share in the said property. Under those circumstances I do not want to dwell into Ex.B188 gift deed.

29. ISSUE NO.2 IN OS.No.466/1999:

1)Whether the 2nd defendant is liable to render accounts as prayed for.

i)The plaintif who is his joint owner of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property extensively let in evidence to show as per the orders in interlocutory application filed by the 14th defendant in OS.No.1358/99, the keys pertaining to ground floor of item No.4 (item No.1 in OS.No.466/99) handed over to the 6th defendant. However DW8 (2nd defendant in this suit) admitted that he let out to Andhra Bank with consent of other brothers. He further testified that later he himself let out the same in 1997 or 1998 to the present tenant and collecting the rents. Therefore, he is liable to account the amounts collected by him to all the joint owners of item No.4 and 5 of the plaint schedule properties.

ii)In view of my forgoing discussion, this issue is answered affirmatively.

30)ISSUE No.5 in OS.No.95/1995:

50

5)Whether the 17th defendant is a necessary party to this suit?

i)Admittedly the 17th defendant is the tenant of item No.5 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/1995 (which is item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/99). As could be seen from the record the rents are credited by the 17th defendant in bank. It is pleaded by them due to disputes between the family members of Late Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna

Rao, the defendant bank deposited the rents in the account of Late

Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. In fact during the pendency of suit, the 17th defendant filed petition in IA.No.947/2006 in OS.No.466/99 they want to vacate the premises by the first of January, 2007. At the instance of the 3rd defendant. In IA.No.1/2007 an advocate receiver is appointed on 7.6.2007 to manage the item No.5 of the plaint schedule property and to take possession from the 17th defendant. In IA.No.947/2006 in OS.No.499/96 the court passed the orders, dated 20.6.2007 directing the 7th defendant to handover the keys to the receiver and receiver took possession of the item No.5 of the plaint schedule property from the 17th defendant all for tenders to lease out the same. But at the time the petitioner delivered the plaint schedule property, he found the building is exclusively damaged and directed the 17th defendant’s officials to get the damaged estimated, but they did not get the damages estimated under the back ground of these facts, the 17th defendant being a tenant and in possession of one of the item of plaint schedule property he is a proper and necessary party.

51 ii)Hence this issue is answered.

31)ISSUE NO.6 IN OS.No.95/95:

i)Whether the suit is property valued or not?

ii)Whether the plaintif is entitled to the partition of the property as prayed for?

i)In the light forgoing discussion and the answers to issue Nos. 1 to 4 and additional issue No.1, dated 8.6.2005 and additional issue Nos. 1 and 2,

dated 11.12.2006 I found that the plaintif is not entitled to any share in items

No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 of the plaint schedule properties. However, she is entitled to 1/72th share in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property.

31.ISSUE NOs.7 and 8 in OS.No.95/1995:-

1)Whether the plaintif is entitled for the mesne profits as claimed?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled for the future profits?

i)In view of the answers to issue No.6 the plaintif is entitled for mesne profits for her 1/72th share. However, mesne profits has to be ascertained by way of separate application Under Order XX Rule 12 C.P.C. in

Saint Mary’s Educational Society, Represented by its Secretary and

others Vs. Dr. Qutubuddin Ahmed and others, reported in 2007 (3)

ALT 214. Our Hon’ble High Courtheld that

the mesne profits to be ascertained on an

application made under the mandatory provision of Rule 12 of Order 20 of C.P.C., fixation of mesne profits straightaway by courts below without following the said mandatory procedure 52 is not legal. The damages as to be ascertained by way of separate application.

ii)Accordingly she is entitled for mesne profits and future profits till delivery of her share.

14.ADDL. ISSUE NO.3, DATED 13.12.2006 IN OS.NO.95/95:

Whether the suit is properly valued or not?

i)The contention of the defendant is that except in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property the plaintif is not entitled for any other items as they are not joint family properties the plaintif is not in possession of item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the plaint schedule properties but the plaintif paid only fixed court fee for the item Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6. But she ought to have paid the court fee Under Section 34 of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act. But it may be noted that none of the defendants has not specifically pleaded exactly when the plaintif was ousted. Moreover, the plaintif is having share in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property.

ii)Hence this issue is answered in favour of the plaintif.

32.ISSUE NO.9 IN OS 95/95, ISSUE NO.6 IN OS.NO.691/1996 AND

ISSUE NO.3 IN OS.NO.466/1999:

To what relief?

In view of the answer to issues discussed supra, the suit in

OS.No.466/1999 is preliminarily decreed and the suit is partly decreed

53 preliminarily in OS.No.95/95 allotting 1/72th share each to the plaintif, defendants 3, 4, 8 to 10 and 13/72th share each to the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property (item No.1 of plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/99) and the remaining 1/72th share belongs to the deceased Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in the 1/6th share of

Nimmagadda Syam Prasad shall be utilized for the purpose as per his bequeath under Ex.B47, dated 7.3.1990.

The plaintif is also entitled for mesne profits by way of separate application for her 1/72th share in the said item No.4 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/95 (item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in

OS.No.466/99).

Item No.5 of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.95/95 (item No.2 of plaint schedule property in OS.No.466/99) shall be partitioned among the defendants 1, 2, 5 to 7 (the plaintif and the defendants 1 to 4 in

OS.No.466/99) and each of them shall get 1/5th share in the said item.

The rest of the claim of the plaintif in OS.No.95/95 is dismissed.

The suit in OS.No.691/1996 is also dismissed.

In the circumstances the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 7th day of March, 2017

VII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN O.S.NO.95/95

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PLAINTIFF: PW1 : Adusumilli Chinnamma PW2: Nimmagadda Sivaramakrishna Prasad

DEFENDANT: DW1: Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad 54

DW2: Nimmagadda Lalitha Prasad DW3: Nimmagadda Bhanu Prasad DW4: A.V.Ramana DW5: Tejomurthula Narasimha Murthy DW6: Smt.Potluri Lakshmikantha DW7: Nadigam Nageswara Rao DW8: Nimmagadda Rama Prasad

Documents marked on behalf of Plaintif

Ex.A1: Office copy of notice dated 23.02.1993 Ex.A2: Returned cover of D1. Ex.A3: Acknowledgement of D2. Ex.A4: Acknowledgement of D3 Ex.A5: Acknowledgement of D5 Ex.A6: Acknowledgement of D6 Ex.A7: Acknowledgement of D7 Ex.A8: Acknowledgement of D8 Ex.A9: Acknowledgement of D9 Ex.A10: Acknowledgement of D10 Ex.A11: Office copy of notice dated 06.03.1993 Ex.A12: Returned notice of D1 Ex.A13: Acknowledgement of D2 Ex.A14: Acknowledgement of D3 Ex.A15: Acknowledgement of D6 Ex.A16: Acknowledgement of D7 Ex.A17: Acknowledgement of D8 Ex.A18: Acknowledgement of D9 Ex.A19: Acknowledgement of D10 Ex.A20: Reply for Ex.A1 dated 16.03.1993 Ex.A21: Acknowledgement of D4 Ex.A22: Signature of Allanka Venkata Ramana of deposition in C.A. No.6673/2003 dated 14.10.2000(marked through DW4) Ex.A23: Signature of Allanka Venkata Ramana on the last page of Will (marked through DW4) Ex.A24: Specimen hand writing of T. Narasimha Murthy dated 10.11.2003 (marked through DW5) Ex.A25: Signature of P.M.Sarma as 2nd attestor in photostat copy of will (marked through DW5 on 10.11.2003) Ex.A26: Registration extract of sale deed dated 05.01.1952 executed by N.V.Krishna Rao and his minor sons for the property relating to Dokiparru village. Ex.A27: Registration extract of sale deed dated 23.03.1962 executed by N.V.Krishna Rao at Dokiparru. Ex.A28: Registration extract of sale deed dated 06.04.1965 executed by Venkata Rama Monoharam. Ex.A29: Registration extract of sale deed dated 06.04.1965 executed by Venkata Rama Manoharam. Ex.A30: Sale Deed executed by Kommineni Venkataratnam in favour of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and others(registration extract) 55

dated 07.07.1981.

Ex.A31: Sale deed executed by Nanapaneni Venkateswara Rao in favour of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao and Others (registration extract)

dated 07.07.1981.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defendants

Ex.B1: Registration Extract of the Registered sale deed executed by Palaparti Purnanandam dated 12.10.1971. Ex.B2: Registration Extract of the Registered sale deed executed by Kasinaduni Sambasiva Rao dated 27.01.1978. Ex.B3: Market value certificate issued by S.R.O. VJA., for item No.5 dated 30.04.1999. Ex.B4: Marked value certificate issued by S.R.O., VJA., for item No.4 dated 29.04.1999. Ex.B5: Estimate issued by the Licensed Surveyor estimating the value of G.F.,F.F. and S.F. of item No.4 dated 25.08.1999. Ex.B6: Estimate issued by the Licensed Surveyor estimating the value of G.F., F.F. and S.F. of item no.5 dated 25.08.1999. Ex.B7: Will executed by Nimmagadda Venkatravamma dated 10.12.1986. Ex.B8: Registration Sale Deed executed by Smt. G.Savithri dated 22.09.1989. Ex.B9: Death Certificate of Smt. N.Venkatravamma dated 03.11.1989. Ex.B10: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B11: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B12: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B13: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B14: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B15: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B16: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B17: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B18: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B19: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B20: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 Ex.B21: Income Tax Assessment Order of Smt. N.Venkatravamma for the Assessment year 1986-87 dated 14.10.1987. Ex.B22: Income Tax Assessment Order of Smt. N.Venkatravamma for the Assessment year 1987-88. Ex.B23: Income Tax Assessment Order of Smt. N.Venkatravamma for the assessment year 1988-89 dated 11.03.1991. Ex.B24: Income Tax Refund Order for the Assessment year 1989-90 of Smt. N.Venkatravamma dated 14.03.1991. Ex.B25: Income Tax Refund Order for the Assessment year 1990-91 of Smt. N.Venkatravamma dated 14.03.1991. Ex.B26: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B27: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B28: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma.

56

Ex.B29: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B30: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B31: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B32: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B33: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B34: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B35: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B36: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B37: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B38: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B39: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B40: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B41: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B42: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B43: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B44: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B45: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B46: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26423 standing in the name of Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatravamma. Ex.B47: Registered Will executed by Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 57 07.03.1990. Ex.B48: Death Certificate of P.Markandeya Sarma dated 25.07.2003. Ex.B49: Death Certificate of Allanki Venkataramana dated 08.02.2003. Ex.B50: Registered Sale Deed executed by Smt. Panuganti Tulasamma in favour of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 21.04.1964. Ex.B51: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B52: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B53: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B54: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B55: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B56: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B57: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B58: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B59: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B60: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B61: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B62: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B63: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B64: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B65: Property tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B66: Income tax Assessment Order for the Assessment year 1982-1983 of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 01.06.1985. Ex.B67: Income Tax Assessment Order for the Assessment year 1983-84 of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 05.09.1986.

58

Ex.B68: Income Tax Assessment Order for the Assessment year 1984-85 of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 05.09.1986. Ex.B69: Income Tax Assessment Order for the Assessment year 1985-86 of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 05.09.1986. Ex.B70: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B71: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B72: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B73: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B74: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B75: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B76: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B77: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B78: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B79: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B80: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B81: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B82: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years 59 commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B83: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B84: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B85: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B86: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B87: Property Tax receipts for Assessment No.26416 standing in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad for item No.3 of plaint 'A' schedule for the half years commencing from 1994-95 /1 to 2002-03/2. Ex.B88: Original of Ex.B1 Registered Sale Deed executed by Palaparti Purnanandam dated 12.10.1971. Ex.B89: Original of Ex.B2 Registered Sale Deed executed by Kasinaduni Sambasiva Rao dated 27.01.1978. Ex.B90: Certified copy of Plaint in O.S.No.1358/199 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil

Judge Court, Vijayawada. dated 16.06.1999.

Ex.B91: Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No.1358/1999 dated 12.07.2000. Ex.B92: Certified copy of Decree in O.S.No.1358/1999 on the file of I Addl. Junior

Civil Judge's Court, Vijayawada dated 12.07.2000.

Ex.B93: Registered Sale Deed executed by Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao

dated 04.01.1952.

Ex.B94: Registered Sale Deed executed by Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatrama Manoharam and Smt. Yerneni Lakshmi Narsamma dated 05.04.1965. Ex.B95: Registered Sale Deed executed by Smt. Nimmagadda Venkatrama Manoharam dated 05.04.1965. Ex.B96: News Paper publication given by D1 and D3 against D7 dated 04.09.1993. Ex.B97: Private Complaint filed by D1 against Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao in C.C. No.276/1991 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada date 13.11.1990. Ex.B98: News paper publication got issued by D1 dated 28.05.1989. Ex.B99: News paper publication got issued by D1 Ex.B100: Letter written by D1, D2, D5, D6 and D7 dated 13.06.1995. Ex.B101: Distribution of responsibilities in the administration of properties of N.Babu Rajendra Prasad and Brothers among the co-owners enclosed to Ex.B100

dated 13.06.1995.

Ex.B102: Letter addressed by D1 to the Assistant General / Zonal Manager, Bank of 60

Baroda, Madras dated 06.06.1995. Ex.B103: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B104: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B105: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B106: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B107: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B108: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B109: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B110: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B111: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B112: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B113: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B114: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B115: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B116: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item 61

Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B117: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B118: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B119: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B120: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B121: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B122: Receipts for payment of N.A.A. Tax from faslis 1403 to 1410 for item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in the name of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao. Ex.B123: Letter from D1 Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad to D14 Andhra Bank

dated 19.07.1995.

Ex.B124: Letter from D5 N.Rama Prasad to D14 Andhra Bank dated 21.05.1994. Ex.B125: Letter from D5 N.Rama Prasad to D14 Andhra Bank dated 08.07.1994. Ex.B126: legal notice got issued by D5 N. Rama Prasad to D14 Andhra Bank dated 15.08.1994. Ex.B127: Postal acknowledgement for Ex.B126 dated 17.08.1994. Ex.B128 Reply legal notice got issued by D14 Andhra Bank to Ex.B126 dated 27.08.1994. Ex.B129: Letter from N.Babu Rajendra Prasad and Brothers to D14 Andhra Bank

dated 25.10.1993.

Ex.B130: Letter addressed by D1 N.Babu Rajendra Prasad on behalf of N.Babu Rajendra Prasad & Brothers to D14 Andhra Bank. Ex.B131: Letter from D1 Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad on behalf of N.Babu Rajendra Prasad and Brothers to D14 Andhra Bank dated 01.06.1995. Ex.B132: Settlement Agreement dated 01.11.1982. Ex.B133: Death Certificate of Nimmagadda Venkata Krishna Rao dated 03.10.1992, Ex.B134: Transfer of Ration Card in the name of D7 N.Bhanu Prasad dated 19.05.1994. Ex.B135: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 62 to 1413. Ex.B136: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1392 to 1413. Ex.B137: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1393 to 1413. Ex.B138: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1394 to 1413. Ex.B139: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1395 to 1413. Ex.B140: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1396 to 1413. Ex.B141: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1397 to 1413. Ex.B142: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1398 to 1413. Ex.B143: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1399 to 1413. Ex.B144: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B145: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B146: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B147: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B148: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B149: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B150: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B151: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B152: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B153: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413.

63

Ex.B154: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B155: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B156: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B157: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B158: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B159: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B160: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B161: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B162: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B163: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B164: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B165: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B166: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B167: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B168: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B169: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B170: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B171: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413.

64

Ex.B172: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B173: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B174: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B175: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B176: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B177: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B178: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B179: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B180: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B181: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B182: Non Agricultural Assessment tax receipts for items 1,2 and 3 from fasli 1391 to 1413. Ex.B183: Mutation endorsement issued by V.M.C. In respect of Assessment No.26414 dated 20.09.1993. Ex.B184: Mutation endorsement issued by V.M.C. In respect of Assessment No.26423 dated 27.09.1993. Ex.B185: Mutation Endorsement issued by V.M.C. In respect of Assessment No.26416 dated 06.10.1993. Ex.B186: Letter from Bill Collector, Ward No.28/2, to the Commissioner V.M.C.

Dated 07.10.1993.

Ex.B187: Pass Book of N.Venkatravamma for her S.B. Account No.2330 in Indian Bank, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada. Ex.B188: Registration extract of gift deed executed by D6 and D7 and Nimmagadda Subramanya Prasad in favour of Defendant No.4 along with typed copy. Ex.B189: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B190: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B191: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, 65

Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B192: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B193: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B194: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B195: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014. Ex.B196: Receipts of Water tax paid by Defendant No.7 to the Krishna Co- operative Irrigation and Agricultural Improvement Society Limited, Guntupalli dated from 31.03.2000 to 23.03.2014.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN O.S.NO.691/1996

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT: PW1: Bhanu PrasadNil Documents marked on behalf of Plaintif Ex.A1: 25.08.2004: Office copy of legal notice dated 09.08.1996. Ex.A2: 25.08.2004: Return R.P. cover Ex.A3: 25.08.2004: Sale deed dated 27.02.1965. Ex.A4: 25.08.2004: Certified copy of will dated 07.03.1990. Ex.A5: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 02.12.1983. Ex.A6: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 17.02.1984. Ex.A7: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 25.02.1985. Ex.A8: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 04.11.1985. Ex.A9: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 23.01.1986. Ex.A10: 25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 16.07.1986. Ex.A11:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 10.03.1987. Ex.A12:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 22.08.1987. Ex.A13:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 12.01.1988. Ex.A14:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 09.09.1988. Ex.A15:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 31.03.1989. Ex.A16:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 15.07.1989. Ex.A17:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 15.02.1990. Ex.A18:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 27.08.1990. Ex.A19:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 12.03.1991. Ex.A20:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 31.08.1991. Ex.A21:25.08.2004: House tax receipt dated 25.02.1992. Ex.A22: 25.08.2004: Endorsement certificate given by Municipal Corporation

dated 20.09.1993.

Ex.A23:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 25.06.1994. Ex.A24:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 19.09.1994. Ex.A25:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 29.03.1995. Ex.A26:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 01.11.1995. Ex.A27:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 14.05.1996. Ex.A28:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 30.09.1996. Ex.A29:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 26.02.1997. Ex.A30:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 15.11.1997. Ex.A31:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 06.11.1997. Ex.A32:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 01.02.1999.

66

Ex.A33:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 11.09.1999. Ex.A34:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 27.03.2000. Ex.A35:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 02.09.2000. Ex.A36:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 23.02.2001. Ex.A37:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 06.08.2001. Ex.A38:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 18.01.2002. Ex.A39:25.08.2004: Tax receipt issued in favour of plaintif dated 16.08.2002. Ex.A40:25.08.2004: Certificate of Architect dated 29.12.2003.

Documents marked on behalf of Defendant Nil

VII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.