Family Court, Vzm 1 O.S.No.88 of 2012
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM
Present: Smt. M. Meena Devi,
Judge, Family Court-cum-
III Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram.
Friday, this the 28th day of June, 2024
O.S.No. 88 of 2012
Between:
1) Gogula Srinivas Kantha Rao
...Plaintiff.
And:
1) Gogula Surya Rao
2) Smt. Gogula Janaki (died)
3) Gogula Ramanajee Rao
4) Smt.Vankayala Lakshmi Kantham
5) Smt.Uppala Venkata Vasavi Kantham …Defendants.
The suit coming on 29-04-2024 before me for final hearing, in the presence of Sri K.Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri
K.V.N.Thammanna Setty, Advocate for defendants 1 and 4, Sri K.Ramachandra Rao,
Advocate for defendant No.3 and 2nd defendant died, 5th defendant remained exparte and having stood over consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
1.This is a suit filed for partition of the plaint schedule properties including debts into five equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff and further direct that while effecting such partition, allot plaint B schedule properties and other family properties alienated by defendants towards their respective shares and to workout the equities and to direct the 1st defendant to account for profits due on the plaint A schedule properties, excepting Item No.2 thereof from the date of suit, till the plaintiff is put into possession of such separate share and for costs of the suit.
2.The averments of neat copy of plaint are as follows:
a)Plaintiff and defendants 3 to 5 are children of defendants 1 and 2.
Family Court, Vzm 2 O.S.No.88 of 2012
Plaintiff and 1st defendant constitute a joint Hindu family for which 1st defendant is
Kartha. 1st defendant and his two brothers along with their father late Gogula China
Atchanna were members of Hindu joint family and possessed buildings, business concerns at Vizianagaram and agricultural lands at Thathavari Kittali village, Gurla
Mandal, Vizianagaram District etc. 1st defendant being the eldest son of late Atchanna strived hard in the family businesses and acquired properties in the name of his wife, 2nd defendant and his brothers. During life time of father of 1st defendant, there was partition between his brothers, father and himself. In the said partition 1st defendant got land shown as Item No.2 of plaint A schedule properties, business concern that was being run at P.W.Market, Vizianagaram under the name and style of “Gogula
China Atchanna & sons” and also house site measuring 100 or 150 Sq. yards situated at Poolbagh, Vizianagaram and his brothers got some other properties.
b)It was further averred that in the year 1985 ,plaintiff who failed 10th class by that time, joined 1st defendant and assisted him in the business. Fortunately, the business flourished and 1st defendant being Kartha, started acquiring the properties, in the names of defendants 2 to 5 and also in the name of plaintiff. He got constructed a house on the site purchased in the name of 2nd defendant with joint family funds. 2nd defendant had no separate source of income to acquire the site or to construct the building. Initially, the family took Dall mill of Sri Boddu Pydanna @
Rambabu, during 1987 for a period of 10 years and did business. Later 1st defendant thought it wise to construct a mill of their own in the land in Item No.2 of plaint A schedule. Eventually the mill described in plaint A schedule came into existence with the loans obtained from the bank by the family, hard work of plaintiff and being run by plaintiff since 2000, under the guidance of 1st defendant. Subsequently, 1st defendant being Kartha of family contracted loan of Rs.20 lakhs as working capital from SBI and also secured loan of Rs.10 lakhs on the business concern and he made the plaintiff contract a loan of Rs.10 lakhs for construction of house shown as Item No.3 of plaint
Family Court, Vzm 3 O.S.No.88 of 2012
A schedule. Out of such debts, the debt contracted by 1st defendant on his business was discharged from out of joint family funds and plaintiff was directed to undertake the liability of the above said Rs.20 lakhs and Rs.10 lakhs and to discharge from out of income of mill business. Plaintiff enhanced the loan limit from Rs.20 lakhs to Rs.40 lakhs. Such existing debts are shown as plaint E schedule.
c)It was further averred that though the plaintiff has been looking after and carrying on the mill business, 1st defendant used to get stocks for his business under the name and style of “Gogula Surya Rao” on credit, from the plaintiff’s concern. In fact, the stocks were so transferred for the purpose of accounts, as suggested by 1st defendant and 1st defendant’s business concern is shown as debtor in the accounts of the mill and as per accounts more than Rs.10 lakhs is due.
Similarly, for the purpose of income tax, nominally a lease was created as if mill was given by 1st defendant to plaintiff on rent. Mill property being part of joint family property, income from the mill was never really treated as personal income of the plaintiff. Further, initially 1st defendant gave security for the loan taken towards working capital of the mill and later he withdrew from liability of surety after plaintiff questioned the 1st defendant about the alienation of properties without any necessity and without even informing the plaintiff. Unfortunately 4th defendant took advantage of the situation and poisoned the mind of 1st defendant, resulting which 1st defendant assumed a challenging attitude and referred the plaintiff to his remedies during May, 2008.
d)It was further averred that after marriage of plaintiff, differences cropped up between his wife and 2nd defendant, which could not be reconciled, due to which plaintiff along with his children and wife were made to go out of the family house and they lived in a rented house at Vinayaka Nagar, Vizianagaram. After about three or four years, with the advice of 1st defendant, housing loan of Rs.10 lakhs was availed and plaintiff got constructed a house shown as Item No.3 of plaint A schedule
Family Court, Vzm 4 O.S.No.88 of 2012 and shifted his residence to that building. Though, plaintiff has been living separately since then, the properties were joint family properties. During May, 2008, as stated above, plaintiff was constrained to request the 1st defendant to partition the joint family properties. 1st defendant suggested that he is not in possession of any other properties to be partitioned except properties standing in the name of plaintiff and Item No.2 of plaint A schedule and tried to screen other valuable properties. During the course of discussion, 1st defendant suggested an adhoc arrangement that proper partition would be effected after marriage of 3rd defendant, till such time he can believe that what all properties are in the name of plaintiff, were given to him. Since then the plaintiff enquired about properties purchased with joint family funds and came to know that 1st defendant acquired about 50 items and sold some of them for profit but did not account for the same. As per the particulars acquired by plaintiff, properties shown in plaint B schedule were acquired by the 1st defendant with joint family funds and out of vengeance he disposed some of them with an intention to cause loss to plaintiff and deprive his share.
e)It was further averred that 3rd defendant never took part in the family business activity. He was educated and secured a job in 2008 but did not contribute any of his income for the benefit of the family. Marriage of 4th defendant, plaintiff and 5th defendant were performed in 1992, 1997 and 1998 respectively.
Defendants 4 and 5 were given valuables like cash, gold and silver etc., at the time of their marriages but 1st defendant acquired some properties in their names also nominally but for the real benefit of the joint family. 3rd defendant’s marriage was said to have been performed in the year 2010 but plaintiff was not invited for the same.
f)It was further averred that due to differences between plaintiff and 1st defendant, taking advantage of nominal lease in respect of mill in Item No.2 of plaint A schedule, 1st defendant filed O.S.167/2009 against plaintiff on the file of
Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram and got direction to the plaintiff to deposit
Family Court, Vzm 5 O.S.No.88 of 2012 the admitted rent, according to the accounts of mill. Unable to deny the accounts, plaintiff has been depositing the rents into court. 1st defendant, mischievously treating
Item No.2 of plaint A schedule as his own separate property executed a settlement deed dt.11.11.2009 in favour of 3rd defendant. The conduct of 1st and 3rd defendants, through the said transaction reveals that there was no partition and allotment of properties among any of the family members. Similarly, 1st defendant gifted Item No.8 of plaint A schedule to 4th defendant. Also, 1st defendant individually and along with some of the defendants alienated some of the plaint B schedule properties, detrimental to the interest of plaintiff. The said properties are joint family properties and plaintiff is not a party to the said document and as such they do not bind him. 1st defendant leased out the ground floor of Item No.11 of plaint A schedule for a show room on monthly rent of Rs.60,000/- and similarly leased out the ground and second floor of Item No.1 of plaint A schedule to tenants on monthly rent of Rs.40,000/-. He stopped doing business and sold some business concerns by taking goodwill of Rs.35 lakhs, without the consent of the plaintiff. All these acts are clearly mismanagement of properties by 1st defendant, to unduly enrich either himself or the other defendants.
g)It was further averred that after 1st defendant has withdrawn his surety to the loan for working capital of the business, being carried on by the plaintiff, the plaintiff had to offer the properties standing in his name and such amount was invested in the business which was liable to be shared among other family members, along with properties, housing loan, business debts etc., which are shown as plaint E schedule. Similarly the debt due by 1st defendant, to the knowledge of plaintiff is about 10 lakhs which is shown as plaint D schedule liable to be shared among the family members. The stock in trade of the plaintiff is shown in plaint C schedule. Even during pendency of O.S.167/2009 plaintiff often visited the 2nd defendant at Item No.1 of plaint A schedule and mooted the 1st defendant to effect equitable partition of the property in the interest of family but 1st defendant was very adamant. Having no other
Family Court, Vzm 6 O.S.No.88 of 2012 option plaintiff had to file this suit.
3.a)1st defendant filed his written statement denying the averments of plaint except the relationship between the parties. Memo was filed by defendants 2 and 4 adopting the same. It was inter-alia contended that properties mentioned in the plaint schedule are not joint family properties or ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendants and as such plaintiff is not entitled to lay any claim in the plaint schedule properties. Plaintiff filed this suit with an oblique motive to grab the exclusive self acquired properties of the defendants. 1st defendant along with his father and other two younger brothers acquired Item No.2 of plaint A schedule mentioned properties with their own funds by contributing equally. They also acquired other properties with the monies which they acquired with their joint efforts. So, 1st defendant has not inherited any movable or immovable properties from his ancestors. Item No.2 of plaint
A schedule properties fell to the share of this defendant in the partition with his father and two other brothers. At that time of said partition it is only agricultural land.
Thereafter, 1st defendant obtained loan from SBI, main branch, Vizianagaram and also with his personal savings, constructed a Dal mill in the name and style of “M/s. Sri
Venkateswara Dal Industries”. So, said property is self-acquired property of 1st defendant. Plaintiff approached 1st defendant and requested him to lease out the mill to him for monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- and 1st defendant obliged the same in view of relationship between them and delivered physical possession of the same on 09.02.2000.
b)It was further contended that as the plaintiff started to entertain an evil idea to grab the properties of 1st defendant, he filed O.S. 167/2009 on the file of
Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram for evicting the plaintiff from the said
property. In the said suit, plaintiff filed his written statement wherein he did not deny the lease and on the other hand admitted that he has been paying rent without any default to 1st defendant. Plaintiff also admitted in the said written statement that there
Family Court, Vzm 7 O.S.No.88 of 2012 was partition of their joint family properties and further that some of the properties fell to his share and also gave a list of properties partitioned among the family members and which properties are kept in joint etc. So, the plaintiff cannot now go beyond his own admissions and pleadings. In the said suit, 1st defendant also filed I.A.
1358/2010 under Order XV-A of CPC seeking to direct the defendant therein ie., plaintiff herein to pay arrears of rents and to continue to deposit the same and the same was allowed. As per orders in the said I.A plaintiff paid some rents also to the 1st defendant.
c)It was further contended that Items 1, 7 and 9 of plaint A schedule properties are self acquired properties of 2nd defendant. After purchasing Item No.1 of plaint A schedule from one Udayagiri Mohana Rao under registered sale deed, she constructed a building in the vacant site with her own money. She purchased Item
No.7 from one A.Mamata under registered sale deed dt.1.8.2006 and later sold away the same to one Dantuluri Sri Thanuja under registered sale deed to develop her other properties. Similarly, she also sold Item No.9 to one Ch.Brahmaji under registered sale deed. Item No.4 of plaint B schedule property is also self acquired property of 2nd defendant. All the said properties were acquired by her with her stridhana properties and also out of personal savings and also monies given to her at the time of her marriage by her rich parents.
d)It was further contended that Item No.2, 8, 10 and 11 of plaint A schedule properties and Item No.1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 of plaint B schedule properties are self acquired properties of 1st defendant which were acquired with his hard self earned monies from the business carried by him and also the monies given by his in-laws at the time of his marriage. Item No.8 of plaint A schedule property was gifted away by him to the 4th defendant. Item No.3 of plaint B schedule property is self acquired property of 3rd defendant.
Family Court, Vzm 8 O.S.No.88 of 2012
e)It was further contended that business concerns of Sri Balaji Dals exclusively belongs to plaintiff and he is carrying on the business of Sri Balaji Dals in his individual capacity. Defendants have nothing to do with the said business of Sri
Balaji Dals or plaint C schedule property. Plaintiff highly exaggerated the plaint D schedule properties and has nothing to do with the same. 1st defendant is not liable to pay amount of Rs.10,62,102/- as claimed in Item No.2 of plaint D schedule. Plaintiff is also not entitled to claim rent paid by him to the 1st defendant. Plaintiff himself borrowed the amount shown in Item No.1 of plaint E schedule in his personal capacity for his own business, from SBI, main branch, Vizianagaram. The defendants have nothing to do with Item No.1 to 5 of plaint E schedule.
f)It was further contended that the firm Gogula China Atchanna &
Sons is not ancestral property of 1st defendant. 1st defendant, his father and brother invested their personal amounts and started business and carried the same for a short period of 4 years. 1st defendant being father, encouraged plaintiff and 3rd defendant equally to prosecute their studies. Plaintiff being a greedy person did not pay any attention towards eduction. So, this defendant had to take the Dal mill of Boddu
Pydanna @ Rambabu by investing huge money and put the plaintiff as incharge of the said mill. Plaintiff secreted the profits earned from the said Dal mill and acquired item
No.3, 4 and 5 of plaint A schedule properties and other valuable movable and immovable properties in the name of his wife and also in his name. Claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Court fee paid is incorrect. Plaintiff is not entitled for repartition of plaint schedule properties as the plaintiff himself admitted in the plaint that there was an earlier partition. Hence suit may be dismissed.
4.3rd defendant filed separate written statement with similar contentions as contended by 1st defendant. Apart from that it was also contended that 1st defendant out of free volition on his own accord executed the registered settlement deed dt.11.11.2009 in his favour in respect of Item No.2 of plaint A schedule property and
Family Court, Vzm 9 O.S.No.88 of 2012 he became absolute owner of the same. Plaint schedule properties are not joint family properties. Plaintiff filed this suit as counter blast to the eviction proceedings pending against him in the suit filed by 1st defendant in respect of Item No.2 of plaint A schedule and in view of settlement of said property in favour of 3rd defendant. Hence, suit may be dismissed.
5.Basing on the above pleadings, my learned predecessor framed the following issues:
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
2) To what relief?
6.On 23.04.2018 as per orders passed in I.A.1361/2017 the following
additional issues were framed by my learned predecessor:
I) Whether the Items 1, 7, and 9 of plaint A schedule and Item No.4 of plaint B schedule are self acquired properties of the 2nd defendant and the 2nd defendant has any Stridhana properties?
2) Whether Items 2,8,10 an 11 of plaint A schedule and Items 1,2,4,6 and 7 of plaint B schedule properties are self acquired properties of 1st defendant?
3) Whether Item No.3 of plaint B schedule property is self acquired property of the 3rd defendant?
7.On 07.08.2018 1st defendant filed I.A.721/2018 under Order VIII Rule 9 r/w section 151 of CPC to receive additional written statement and the same was allowed.
In pursuance of the orders in the said petition, additional written statement was filed by 1st defendant wherein it was contended that 2nd defendant executed a registered Will dt.03.03.2012 and she died on 25.12.2016. After her death, the said registered Will came into force and as per said Will 1st defendant alone became absolute owner of
Items 1 and 7 of plaint A schedule properties. The said Will is the last will and testament of 2nd defendant.
Family Court, Vzm 10 O.S.No.88 of 2012
8.Thereafter, on considering the pleadings, on 13.08.2018 the following
additional issue was framed by my learned predecessor:
Whether the Will dt.03.03.2012 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff?
9.Again on 20.09.2022 1st defendant filed I.A. 1110/2022 under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC to receive another additional written statement and the same was allowed on 10.11.2022 and additional written statement filed along with said petition has been received. As per contents in the said additional written statement, 1st defendant pleaded that during pendency of the suit, plaintiff without obtaining permission of this court and without knowledge of the defendants, sold away item No.3 of plaint A schedule property to Gopuram Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., under registered sale deed bearing No.3205/2022 and also Item No.4 and 5 of plaint A schedule properties to the same vendee vide registered sale deed bearing No.3206/2022. In the said sale deeds it was mentioned by plaintiff that plaint schedule properties are self acquired properties and also described himself as proprietor of Sri Balaji Dals (item No.1 of A schedule property). So, the said Gopuram Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vizianagaram is having interest in Item Nos.3, 4 and 5 of plaint A schedule properties and has to be brought on record as one of the defendants, but plaintiff willfully failed to do so. So, the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.
10.In reply to the additional written statement filed by 1st defendant, plaintiff filed re-joinder wherein it was averred that 1st defendant disowned his status as father and
Kartha of the family. 1st defendant did not make any attempt to discharge the debt shown in plaint E schedule. Some of the debts were contracted on the securities of
Items 3, 4, and 5 of plaint A schedule. The debts shown in the plaint E schedule were piling up with accrued interest. Plaintiff was constrained to close the business during 2018 as he could not get working capital, due to which bank authorities served possession notice showing an outstanding balance of Rs.1,85,53,011-93 paise as on 22.04.2022 and initiated auction of the properties shown in the notice schedule. Under
Family Court, Vzm 11 O.S.No.88 of 2012 those circumstances plaintiff sold Items 3 to 5 of plaint A schedule during pendency of the suit and paid all debts shown in plaint E schedule. So, Items 3 to 5 of plaint A and
E schedules need to be deleted. Hence, suit may be decreed.
11.Considering the above pleadings, and issues mentioned above, the issues were recasted on 17.02.2023 as follows:
1) Whether the Items 1,7 and 9 of plaint A schedule & Item No.4 of plaint B schedule are self acquired properties of 2nd defendant and 2nd defendant has any stridhana properties?
2) Whether Items 2,8,10, and 11 of plaint A schedule and Items 1,2,4,6 and 7 of plaint B schedule properties are self acquired properties of 1st defendant?
3) Whether Item No.3 of plaint B schedule property is self acquired property of 3rd defendant?
4) Whether Will dt.03.03.2012 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff?
5) Whether sale transactions covered by Ex.B-19 and B.20 are hit by principles of lispendency and whether they would bind the defendants?
6) Whether M/s Gopuram Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vizianagaram is a proper and necessary party, so far as Items 3 to 5 of plaint A schedule properties, to this suit?
7) Whether the plaintiff discharged debts shown in plaint E schedule properties during pendency of suit?
8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of plaint schedule properties as prayed for?
9) To what relief?
12.During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1, one third party by name U.V.Satyanarayana Murthy was examined as PW.2 and paternal grand mother of plaintiff by name G.Narasayamma was examined as PW.3. Ex.A-1 to A-16 were got marked on behalf of plaintiff.
13.On behalf of defendants, 1st defendant got himself examined as DW-1. 2nd
Attestor of Ex.B-1/Will by name Bugatha Gopi was examined as DW-2. Cousin brother of 1st defendant by name Gogula Rama Rao was examined as DW-3. 3rd defendant
Family Court, Vzm 12 O.S.No.88 of 2012 was examined as DW-4, Ex.B-1 to B-20 were got marked through 1st defendant.
14.Heard learned counsels for both sides. Written arguments were filed by plaintiff’s counsel and counsels for defendants 1, 3 and 4.
15.Arguments regarding joint family nuclues:
The learned counsel for plaintiff submitted in his written arguments that the existence of nucleus is to be established from the great grandfather of plaintiff i.e., in other words claimant must be the 4th lineal descendant from common ancestors. He relied upon the cross examination of DW-1 and submitted that the family has source of income and nucleus for the last 3 generations. He further submitted that to constitute a joint family, not only nucleus is a source, but also joint exertions of plaintiff and 1st defendant and it cannot be said that without contribution of plaintiff in the business, 1st defendant alone acquired all the properties after 1985 and that no property is shown to have acquired prior to plaintiff joining business. He further submitted that the recitals in Ex.A-4 partition deed among 1st defendant, his brothers and father, suggests that
Item No.2 of plaint A schedule purchased under Ex.B-18 sale deed was thrown into the common hotchpot, even though sale deed stands in their name and it was not separately dealt with. He also submitted that 1st defendant did not place evidence that they had independent source of income to contribute and did not use the income from joint family. In support of his arguments the learned counsel relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1961 SC 1268 between Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai Vs. Desai
Mallappa alias Mallesappa of Hon’ble Apex Court. So submitting plaintiff’s counsel urged that plaintiff could establish their existence of coparcenary and joint exertions also, for the acquisition of suit properties.
16.Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 4 submitted in his written arguments that as per Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, ancestral properties means property acquired by father, grandfather and great grandfather vide judgment
Family Court, Vzm 13 O.S.No.88 of 2012 reported in AIR 1995 Karnataka 35 between The Vijaya College Trust V. The
Kumta Co-operative Arecanut Sales Society Limited and another . He argued that case of plaintiff himself is that 1st defendant, his brother and father were members of
Hindu joint family and they acquired properties with their joint common efforts and during life time of their father there was partition between them and in that partition, land in Item No.2 of plaint A schedule fell to the share of 1st defendant and in such case the said property is self-acquired property of 1st defendant. He further submitted that 1st defendant acquired other properties from out of the income yielded from Item
No.2 of plaint A schedule property and so the properties in question cannot be treated as ancestral properties of their family. He further argued that there is no evidence adduced by plaintiff to prove that he contributed for acquisition of properties and that the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that properties were purchased from joint family nucleus but plaintiff failed to prove the same and as such plaintiff is not entitled to lay claim for partition of the properties.
17.Arguments regarding pleadings in other suits relating to the same parties:
The learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that the contents in the written statement marked as Ex.B-3, regarding partition pleaded by the plaintiff, cannot be called as admission by him because the crucial test depends on which is a "fact in issue". In the case on hand, defendants did not plead that any partition was effected either as pleaded by plaintiff previously or in a different way. The issue framed by this court includes the issue "whether the suit properties are liable for partition" which is understood as a fact in issue. Further, the alleged partition pleaded by the plaintiff in that suit, as defendant in previous suit, was not a fact in issue in this suit, as such his previous written statement cannot be understood as admission.
18.Learned counsel for the defendants 1, 3 and 4 submitted in their written arguments that plaintiff herein as 1st defendant in O.S.167/2009 filed Ex.B-3 written
Family Court, Vzm 14 O.S.No.88 of 2012 statement admitting the ownership of his father i.e, 1st defendant herein over the mill in Item No.2 of plaint A schedule property and that he took lease of the same and also admitted payment of rents as per orders under Ex.B-4 and now he cannot simply escape by throwing mud against his earlier advocate. They further submitted that contents in the written statement i.e., Ex.B-3 are to be taken as admission as they would assist this court in adjudicating the issue effectively. In support of their contention learned counsel for defendants 1 and 4 relied upon a decisions reported in (1) 2023 (5) ALD 465 between Rock Wood Steel, Secunderabad V. Govindan
Satya Sai and others delivered by the Hon’ble High Court for the State of
Telangana at Hyderabad and (2) 2023 (1) ALD 691 between Premal Pratap Joisher
V. Vikram Jethalal Joisher and others rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.
19.Issue No.2:
Whether Items Nos. 2,8,10 and 11 of Plaint A schedule and Items 1, 2, 4,6 and 7 of plaint B schedule properties are self acquired properties of 1 st defendant?
Issue No.3:
Whether Item No.3 of plaint B schedule property is self acquired property of 3 rd defendant?
Since both these issues are inter related this court finds it is necessary to decide both the issues together. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute.
2nd defendant is wife of 1st defendant. Plaintiff and 3rd defendant are sons and defendants 4 and 5 are daughters of defendants 1 and 2.
20.Plaintiff filed the present suit seeking partition of plaint schedule properties into five equal shares. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff and defendants constitute joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara school of Hindu, for which 1st defendant is manager Kartha. Contesting defendants i.e., defendants 1, 3 and 4 denied the existence of joint Hindu family and pleaded that plaint schedule properties
Family Court, Vzm 15 O.S.No.88 of 2012 are self acquired properties of respective defendants in whose names the sale deeds stand and as such plaintiff is not entitled to seek the relief of partition. Since plaintiff asserted the existence of joint Hindu family, burden of proof is on him to prove the existence of joint Hindu family. To prove the same plaintiff got himself examined as
PW.1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-16. The evidence of PW.1 is that himself, defendants 3 to 5 are children of defendants 1 and 2. He deposed that himself and 2nd defendant constitute a Hindu joint family governed by Mitakshara school of Hindu and 1st defendant father is manager Kartha. He further deposed that 1st defendant and his two brothers along with their father late Gogula China Atchanna were members of a joint Hindu family which possessed buildings, business concerns at
Vizianagaram and agricultural lands at Thathavari Kittali village, Gurla Mandal,
Vizianagaram District and his father strived hard in the family business and acquired properties in the names of 2nd defendant, his brothers and so on. During the life time of father of 1st defendant, there was a partition between 1st defendant, his brothers and his father vide Ex.A-4 partition deed, wherein land in Item No.2 of plaint A schedule, business concern being run at PW market, Vizianagaram under the name and style of “Gogula China Atchanna & sons” and also house site situated at Poolbagh,
Vizianagaram fell to the share of 1st defendant and other properties fell to the share of other sharers. During his cross examination, PW-1 deposed that his grandfather and his three sons jointly acquired the property with the income of joint business and purchased the properties in the name of 2nd defendant and his junior paternal uncle and that Item 2 of plaint A schedule property fell to the share of his father in the partition under Ex.A4.
21.It is pertinent to note that plaintiff never pleaded that 1st defendant acquired any properties from father, grandfather or great grandfather of 1st defendant. It was specifically pleaded that 1st defendant, his two brothers and their father late G.China
Atchanna were members of joint Hindu family and his father being eldest son strived
Family Court, Vzm 16 O.S.No.88 of 2012 hard in the family business and acquired properties in the name of 2nd defendant, his brothers and so on and thereafter 1st defendant, his brothers and his father partitioned properties under Ex.A-4 partition deed. Therefore, as per the said evidence of PW.1, the properties covered under Ex.A-4 are acquired by joint family funds accumulated with the self exertions of each member of the family, especially the 1st defendant. No mention has been made by PW.1 about any property acquired by 1st defendant from his father, father’s father etc. Even PW 2 and 3 who are examined by plaintiff himself also never deposed that 1st defendant succeeded any properties from his father, grandfather and great grandfather. They only deposed that 1st defendant and his father did business at Tatavari kittali and earned profits from the said business.
DW-3/brother of 1st defendant by courtesy deposed that his paternal grandfather and paternal grandfather of 1st defendant are own brothers and by the date of his age of discretion they were living separately and there are no joint family properties among them. He also deposed that 1st defendant and his sons partitioned their joint properties vide registered partition deed and thereafter 1st defendant developed his business. Nothing has been elicited from DW-3 during his cross examination that the 1st defendant succeeded property from his ancestors. So the properties which fell to the share of 1st defendant under Ex.A-4 can be considered as his self-acquired properties only but not ancestral properties.
22.The learned counsel for plaintiff relied upon the cross examination of DW-1, wherein DW-1 deposed that his paternal grand father is Venkata Ramanayya and great grandfather is Atchanna and that he does not know whether during the reign of
Atchanna there used to be Ac.600 of land for their family and he heard that they used to have nearly Ac.100 and also that he does not know how many acres of land fell to the share of his father and how many acres fell to the share of his paternal uncles.
Relying on the said cross examination of DW-1, learned counsel for the plaintiff argued it is clear that from the life time of great grandfather of D.W1 onwards, their
Family Court, Vzm 17 O.S.No.88 of 2012 family had huge extent of land and it is not clarified by DW-1 as to how his father got source to do business and in the absence of evidence, the irresistible conclusion must be that the family got source of income even by the birth of father of DW-1 and nucleus exists from last three generations. However, the said argument and the above evidence elicited from DW-1 is not supported by any pleadings as already mentioned above. Further, even DW-1 also only deposed that he heard that their family had only
Ac.100-00 but no document has been filed to prove that either 1st defendant or his father acquired any properties from their ancestors. Moreover, DW-1 also never deposed that he succeeded any property from his ancestors. So arguments advanced by learned counsel for plaintiff in this regard are untenable.
23.PW.1 deposed in his chief examination that he was asked to join business along with 1st defendant in the year 1985 and business flourished heaps and bounds and 1st defendant being Kartha of joint family started acquiring the properties in the names of defendants and also plaintiff. Further, 1st defendant also got constructed house on the site purchased in the name of his mother i.e., 2nd defendant with joint family funds. 2nd defendant had no separate source of income either to acquire a site or for construction of a building. He also deposed that their family took Dall mill of Sri
Boddu Pydanna @ Rambabu, during the year 1987 for a period of ten years and he was put incharge of the said mill. PW.1 further deposed that after his marriage, while his wife and children were living with the defendants 1 to 3 in item No.1 of plaint A schedule, differences cropped up between his wife and 2nd defendant and could not reconciled. So, he along with his wife and children were made to go out of the family house. Though, he has been living separately since then, yet properties are joint family properties. During May, 2008, plaintiff was constrained to request the 1st defendant to partition the joint family properties, due to circumstances stated above but 1st defendant suggested that he is not in possessionof any other properties to be partitioned excepting the properties standing in the name of PW.1 and Item No.2 of
Family Court, Vzm 18 O.S.No.88 of 2012 plaint A schedule and tried to screen other valuable properties. During the course of discussion, 1st defendant suggested an adhoc arrangement that proper partition would be affected after the marriage of 3rd defendant, till such time what all properties are standing in his name are given to him. He further deposed that 3rd defendant was highly educated and secured a job in 2008. He never took part in family business and never participated for the benefits of family. Marriages of 4th and 5th defendants were performed in 1992 and 1998 respectively and his marriage was performed in 1997. 3rd defendant’s marriage was said to have been performed in the year 2010 but PW.1 was not informed or invited for the same.
24.It is pertinent to note that PW.1 simply deposed in his chief examination that he joined 1st defendant in the year 1985 and assisted him in doing business and as business flourished 1st defendant being Kartha of joint family acquired properties in the names of defendants 2 to 5 and also in the name of plaintiff. He deposed that he was incharge of Dall mill of Boddu Pydanna for a period of 10 years (1987 – 1997) and later after construction of mill in Item No.2 of plaint A schedule, it was run by him since 2000. Though, PW.1 deposed that after he joined business in 1985, business flourished heaps and bounds, no documents or accounts have been filed before this court to show that huge amounts have been accumulated from out of the profits earned in the business till the year 2000. Further, as per evidence of PW.1, 1st defendant started acquiring properties with amounts earned from the business in the name of plaintiff and also in the name of defendants 2 to 5. Plaintiff got filed the suit in respect of 11 items shown as plaint A schedule and 7 items shown in plaint B schedule. Plaint C schedule is the amount for the stock in trade in the business of Sri
Balaji Dalls, D schedule is the amount due to Sri Balaji Dalls and E schedule is amount due by Sri Balaji Dalls. Though, there are 18 immovable properties shown in plaint A and B schedule properties, plaintiff did not choose to file sale deeds or registered extracts of the said registered sale deeds regarding any of the said
Family Court, Vzm 19 O.S.No.88 of 2012 properties. It is very much pertinent to note that though Item No.3 to 6 of plaint A schedule properties are in the name of plaintiff, he did not choose to file sale deeds even in respect of the said properties.
25.Here, it would be apposite to refer to Exs.B-19 and B-20 certified copies of registered sale deeds which were marked through PW-1 during his cross examination.
Ex.B-19 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 29.04.2022 which was executed by plaintiff herein in favour of Gopuram Agro industries Pvt. Ltd in respect of Item No.3 of plaint A schedule properties. Ex.B-20 is the certified copy of sale deed executed on the same day by plaintiff in favour of Gopuram Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. in respect of
Item Nos.4 and 5 of plaint A schedule properties. In Exs.B-19 and B-20 it was categorically mentioned that he purchased Item No.3 to 5 in the year 2003 and 2006 with his self acquired monies (స్వా�ర్జి�తద్ర�వ్యం��) in his name and properties were sold to clear his loan in SBI. As per B-series documents got marked through DW-1, the properties were purchased in the name of defendants 1 to 3 and husband of 4th defendant during the years 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2010. Only Item No.1 of plaint A schedule property has been purchased by 2nd defendant under Ex.B-5 certified copy of registered sale deed on 8.5.1992. Thus, it is clear that all the properties have been purchased subsequent to the year 2000 except Ex.B-5.
26. D.W1 got filed the registered sale deeds and encumbrance certificates relating to some of the plaint schedule properties .So it would be apt to refer here to the relevant portion in the evidence of DW-1/1st defendant .He deposed in his chief examination that Item No.2 of plaint A schedule fell to his share in the partition with his father and other two brothers under registered partition deed dt.19.9.1993 (Ex.A-3).
He further deposed that at the time of partition, the said property was only agricultural land and after it was allotted to his share he obtained loan from SBI, main branch,
Vizianagaram and also with his personal savings he constructed Dal mill under the name and style “M/s. Sri Venkateswara Dal Industries” and as such the said property
Family Court, Vzm 20 O.S.No.88 of 2012 is his self-acquired property. He further deposed that Item Nos 8 and 11 of the plaint
A schedule properties and Item Nos. 1,2,6 and 7 of plaint B schedule properties are self acquired properties and he acquired the same with his hard earned monies from the business carried by him and with monies given by his in-laws at the time of his marriage. He further deposed that he gifted Item No.8 of plaint A schedule property to the 4th defendant on 9.9.2008 vide Ex.B-7 which is certified copy of said gift deed.
Recitals of Ex.B-7 gift settlement deed goes to show that Item No.8 of plaint A schedule properties was purchased by 1st defendant with his own money vide registered sale deed bearing document no.661/2003. Ex.B-9 is the certified copy of sale deed dt.23.3.2006 executed by one G.Sujatha in favour of 1st defendant in respect of Item No.11 of plaint A schedule properties. It was never recited in Ex.B-9 that 1st defendant purchased the properties from out of joint family funds or on behalf of joint family as Kartha. Ex.B-10 is certified copy of sale deed executed by 1st defendant in favour of one N.V.S.Subramanyeswari. In the said sale deed it was recited that 1st defendant purchased the said property on 31.7.2007. Ex.B-11 and
Ex.B-12 are Encumbrance certificates in respect of Item No.2 of plaint B schedule properties. As per said documents, 1st defendant purchased Item No.2 of plaint B schedule properties on 31.7.2007 and sold away the same in parts on 17.3.2010 and 28.1.2010. Exs.B-15 and B-16 are certified copies of sale deeds dt.29.7.2010 and 6.3.2009 regarding Item No.6 of plaint B schedule properties. The recitals in said documents show that property was purchased by 1st defendant on 29.8.2007 vide document bearing no.9058/2007. Ex.B-17 is encumbrance certificate dt.27.4.2019 relating to Item No.7 of plaint B schedule properties. Ex.B-17 reveals that property was purchased by 1st defendant on 26.2.2003 vide registered sale deed and sold by him on 30.11.2010. It is pertinent to note that the learned counsel for plaintiff did not choose to cross examine DW-1 regarding the recitals in the certified copies of above mentioned documents wherein it was stated that 1st defendant purchased the
Family Court, Vzm 21 O.S.No.88 of 2012 properties therein with his own monies in his individual capacity.
27.DW-1 also deposed that Item No.10 of plaint A schedule properties are self- acquired properties of 3rd defendant and husband of 4th defendant. They purchased the same under registered sale deed dt.8.7.2005 from one Y.Muralidhara Chandra
Sekhar and later sold the properties to Allu Srikanth under registered sale deed 11.3.2010. Ex.B-8 is encumbrance certificate dt.30.4.2019 wherein the said sale transaction was mentioned. DW-1 further deposed that Item No.3 of plaint B schedule property is the self-acquired property of 3rd defendant. DW-4/3rd defendant also denied the existence of joint Hindu family.
28.Though the entire case of the plaintiff rests on the pleading that the plaint A and B schedule properties are joint family properties, it is surprising to note that the learned counsel for plaintiff did not choose to cross examine DW1 regarding any of the above mentioned documents or the correctness of the recitals therein particularly regarding the manner of acquisition of the properties. Hence all the recitals in the said documents can be considered as they are.
29.Coming back to the evidence of PW-1, he further deposed that later, in order to construct own mill in the land got by 1st defendant in partition shown as Item No.2 of plaint A schedule, the family initially borrowed a sum of Rs.10 lakhs from the bank and
Rs.15 lakhs were adjusted from the Dall mill of Boddu Pydanna. PW.1 strived hard to get all sorts of approvals from the concerned departments. Thus, the mill described as
Item No.2 of plaint A schedule came into existence and was run by PW.1 since 2000 under the guidance of 1st defendant according to his dictations. During his cross examination, regarding the said aspect, PW-1 deposed that his father obtained loan of
Rs.10 lakhs from SBI for construction of the mill. He deposed that to his remembrance he has signed on all the loan papers along with his father as co-borrower but he deposed that he is not in possession of any loan papers and that he does not have any idea to summon the bank people on his behalf. He denied the suggestion that as
Family Court, Vzm 22 O.S.No.88 of 2012 his father obtained loan in his individual capacity, he never signed as co-borrower.
PW-1 got marked Ex.A-5 entries in day book and Ex.A-10 day book for the year 2000- 2001 which only reveal that some entries in the day book were made in the hand writing of 1st defendant till October, 2000 and the same was also admitted by DW-1.
However, the said entries are not sufficient to prove that the mill was run as per the dictates of 1st defendant or that the mill business was done as jointly family business.
Regarding the construction of mill, DW-1 deposed that he obtained loan from SBI, main branch, Vizianagaram and also with his personal savings he constructed the dall mill and as such it is his self-acquired property. No documents have been produced by either side to prove their oral version. But the evidence of PW.1 and DW-1 reveal that loan has been obtained from SBI for construction of mill but there is no document to show from which funds the said loan has been discharged. Since PW.1 asserted that there is joint family in existence, it is for him to prove the existence of joint nucleus and that there were surplus amounts from out of business done till the year 2000. But no such evidence has been placed on record.
30.PW.1 deposed that subsequently, 1st defendant contracted a loan of Rs.20 lakhs as working capital from SBI as Kartha and also secured loan of Rs.10 lakhs on the business concern and made PW.1 to contract loan of Rs. 10 lakhs for construction of house shown as Item No.3 of plaint A schedule. Out of those debts, the debt contracted by the 1st defendant was discharged from out of joint family funds and
PW.1 was directed to undertake the liability of the above said Rs.20 lakhs and Rs.10 lakhs and to discharge the same from out of income of mill business. Later for improvement of business, PW.1 enhanced the loan limit of Rs.20 lakhs to 40 lakhs.
Such existing debts were shown in schedule E appended to the plaint. PW.1, during his cross examination deposed that he borrowed loan of Rs.20 lakhs from SBI, main branch, Vizianagaram on security of the business of Balaji Dalls. He admitted that his
Family Court, Vzm 23 O.S.No.88 of 2012 father and mother stood as sureties for the said loan by depositing the title deeds of
Item No.1 of plaint A schedule and Item No.2 of Plaint A schedule with bank. He denied the suggestion that he contracted the said loan in his individual capacity and his parents stood as sureties in their individual capacity. He added that the entire loan transaction was carried on jointly. However, he admitted that he operated the said loan in case of necessity and that the lease deed executed between himself and his father in respect of plaint A schedule was deposited with the SBI, Vizianagaram for obtaining loan by him. It is necessary to note that the entire loan transaction could have been proved by filing documents but PW.1 did not choose to opt for the same.
Moreover, the evidence of PW.1 clearly reveals that the loan was obtained in his name for working capital, later enhanced by him from Rs.20 laksh to 40 lakhs and the loan account was operated by him.
31. PW.1 further deposed that though he had been looking after and carrying on the mill business, 1st defendant used to get stock for his business under the name and style of “Gogula Surya Rao” on credit, from his concern. In fact, stocks were so transferred only for the purpose of accounts, as suggested by 1st defendant and 1st defendant’s business concern was shown as debtor in the accounts of the mill. As per accounts more than Rs.10 lakhs is due. Similarly, for the purpose of income tax, nominally a lease was created as if 1st defendant leased out the mill to PW.1 and some part of income of the mill was shown towards rent and expenditure of the mill.
Mill property being part of joint family property, income from the mill was never really treated as personal income of PW.1. Further, 1st defendant initially gave security for the loan for the purpose of working capital of mill business of PW.1 but later withdrew from liability of surety. He deposed that the same happened after PW.1 questioned 1st defendant about alienation of various properties without there being any necessity and even without informing PW.1 about the same and unfortunately, 4th defendant took advantage of such situation and poisoned the mind of 1st defendant, due to which 1st
Family Court, Vzm 24 O.S.No.88 of 2012 defendant assumed a challenge attitude and referred PW.1 to his remedies during
May, 2008.
32.At this juncture, it is necessary to look into Ex.A-7 to A-9. Ex.A-7 to A-9 are the income tax returns with financial statements and auditor reports for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2013-14. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for 1st defendant and 4th defendant, the said returns have been filed in the name of M/s. Balaji Dalls, proprietor Gogula Srinivas Kantha Rao i.e., plaintiff herein and the status was shown as “individual”. The same was also admitted by PW.1 in his cross examination. In the said documents filed by plaintiff himself it was clearly, mentioned that he is doing business in Dall mill belongs to his father ie, Sri
Venkateswara Dall Industries, at Kothapeta, Vizianagaram which was taken on lease by him at Rs.15,000/- per month (Rs.9,000/- for building and Rs.6000/- for machinery).
In Ex.A-7 it was also clearly mentioned at page 3 at the bottom that on 3.7.2007 plaintiff purchased Ac.1.07 agricultural wet land situated at Gotlam village,
Vizianagaram district for Rs.2,14,000/- from Bogi Satyanarayana and others and he spent Rs.22,320/- towards stamps, registration and other expenses and he totally spent Rs.2,36,320/- and investment was met from business. The name of 1st defendant as one of the sundry debtors was mentioned at page 13 in the said document. At page 5 in comments annexed to auditor report in Form 3CB it was mentioned as “1) The assessee manufacturers and trades in grams and dall. He has taken on lease the mill and plant and machinery thereof from his father, Sri Gogula
Surya Rao, Vizianagaram (PANO.ABOPG14268/VZM) by paying Rs.9,000/- and Rs.6,000/- p.m. respectively for the plant and machinery and mill building .
A total of Rs.1,80,000/- was adjusted to the personal account of Sri Gogula
Surya Rao in the books of the assessee.
2) The assessee has also been paying his father Rs.48,000/- p.m. as remuneration for his services in assisting him in his business. In Ex.A-8 in Form no. 3CB,
Chartered accountant has certified that particulars given in said form 3CB and
Family Court, Vzm 25 O.S.No.88 of 2012 the Annexure are true and correct.
In page 2 of Ex.A8 it was mentioned as comments annexed “1) The assessee manufacturer and traders in grams and dall. He has taken on lease the mill and plant and machinery there of from his father, Sri Gogula
Surya Rao, Vizianagaram (P.A.No.ABOPG 1426 B/VZM) by paying rent of
Rs.9,000/- and Rs.6,000/- P.M. respectively for the plant and machinery and mill building. A total of Rs.1,80,000/- was adjusted to the personal account of
Sri Gogula Surya Rao in the books of the assessee.”
So, as per above documents it was clearly mentioned that plaintiff obtained lease of the mill from 1st defendant at Rs.15,000/- per month and he has been paying the same to the 1st defendant and he has been paying Rs.48,000/- per month to his father as remuneration for total service in assisting him in his business.
33.Ex.A-6 is the copy of return filed by DW-1 for assessment year 2006-2007.
The said document was got marked during cross examination of DW-1. It relates to the return filed by G.Surya Rao ie. 1st defendant as proprietor of Gogula Surya Rao, PW market, Vizianagaram. In Ex.A-6 also it was mentioned that Rs.48,000/- was received as remuneration from Sri Balaji Dalls, Vizianagaram. Ex.A-6 also reflects that Balaji dalls, Vizianagaram is one of the sundry creditors for goods supplied and that 1st defendant used to take stock on credit from plaintiff firm i.e., M/s Balaji Dalls as deposed by PW.1 himself. Having taken benefit of taxes and also having relied on said documents for obtaining loans and doing business for a considerably long period, plaintiff cannot now simply state that all the transactions i.e., lease of the mill, payment of remuneration, taking of stocks etc. are all nominal and only for the purpose of accounts. Furthermore, payment of remuneration of Rs.48,000/- to 1st defendant manifests that said amount has been paid to him by the plaintiff by treating him as an employee. If really dall business in Item No.2 of plaint A schedule is joint family business, no remuneration would have been paid to the 1st defendant for his assistance rendered in the business.
Family Court, Vzm 26 O.S.No.88 of 2012
34.Another pertinent point to be noted is that PW.1 himself deposed that though he has been looking after and carrying on mill business, 1st defendant used to get stock for his business in the name and style of Gogula Surya Rao on credit from
PW.1’s concern. Ex.A-6 returns relates to said business of 1st defendant i.e., Gogula
Surya Rao. The cross examination of DW-1 also reveals that DW-1 did business in the name and style of Gogula Surya Rao as its proprietor. DW-1 categorically deposed in his cross examination that he obtained Rs.5 lakhs loan from the bank for construction of the mill and also invested his own capital with earnings from his proprietary concern
Gogula Surya Rao. He deposed that he obtained loan for working capital initially at
Rs.2 lakhs and from time to time it was enhanced upto Rs.10 lakhs. Therefore, from the said evidence of PW.1 and DW-1 it can be said that plaintiff carried on his business in the name and style of Sri Balaji Dals in Item No.2 of plaint A schedule and
DW-1 carried on his business in the name and style of Gogula Surya Rao at PW market, Vizianagaram. Ex.A-6 to A-9 also reveal the same and therefore it is clear that plaintiff failed to prove that Sri Balaji dalls is a joint family business run with joint family funds.
35. Here, it would be apt to mention that after selling Item No.3 to 5 of plaint A schedule properties under Ex.B-19 and B-20 sale deeds, plaintiff recalled himself and got marked Ex.A-11 to A-16 statements of account copies and deposed that amount due to the bank as shown in schedule E of plaint have been discharged with the sale consideration received under Ex.B-19 and B-20 transactions. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for defendants 1 and 4, Ex.A-11 to A-16 statements of account reveal that account name was mentioned as M/s. Sri Balaji Dall Mills, proprietor
Gogula Srinivas Kantha Rao. So the loans shown as due under Ex.A-11 to A-16 relates to the amounts borrowed by plaintiff in his personal capacity but not for the purpose of joint family business.
Family Court, Vzm 27 O.S.No.88 of 2012
36.It is not in dispute that Item Nos. 3 to 5 of plaint A schedule properties stands in the name of plaintiff and that PW.1’s marriage was performed in the year 1997. The mill in Item No.2 of plaint A schedule came into existence since 2000 and was being run by plaintiff since then. PW.1’s mother died in the year 2016. PW.1 deposed that after his marriage, differences cropped up between his wife and 2nd defendant and as they could not reconcile, he along with his wife and children were sent out of the house and they resided in a rented house at Vinayaka Nagar for about 3 or 4 years and later with the advice of 1st defendant he obtained housing loan of
Rs.10 lakhs and got constructed house in Item No.3 of plaint A schedule and since then he has been living in it. During his cross examination he deposed that after he came out of the family house, his wife never visited the said house and likewise his parents never visited his house but he used to visit his parents’ house. He denied the suggestion that he also did not visit his parents house since then.
37. It is important to observe that PW.1 specifically deposed in his chief examination that though he has been living separately, the properties are joint family properties. But it is surprising to note that PW.1 admitted in his cross examination that he got constructed apartments in the vacant site shown as Item Nos 4 and 5 of plaint
A schedule properties and he mortgaged those flats in and around 2013 and 2014 for the purpose of running capital to run the mill. He categorically stated that he did not consult any of his family members while making constructions in those sites. He voluntarily stated that he had no talking terms with his other family members as such he did not consult them. He denied the suggestion that he treated Item No.4 and 5 of plaint A schedule properties as his individual properties, as such he got constructed flats by entering into development agreement with the builder and without consulting his other family members. But PW.1 specifically deposed in his cross examination that he got constructed 15 flats in the vacant site shown as Item No.4 and 5 of plaint A schedule property and 6 flats fell to his share under development agreement which
Family Court, Vzm 28 O.S.No.88 of 2012 were sold by him under Ex.B-20 certified copy of registered sale deed dt.29.4.2022.
38.It is to be recollected here that PW.1 deposed during his earlier cross examination conducted on 3.9.2018 at page 4 that he used to visit his parents house even subsequent to year 2000 and even in his chief examination also at page 6 para 17 he deposed that even during pendency of O.S.167/2009 he often visited the 2nd defendant at Item No.1 of plaint A schedule. In such a case, if the properties are joint family properties, PW.1 would have definitely informed at least his mother about the constructions undertaken by him in Item Nos.4 and 5 as his mother was very much alive at that time. So, the evidence of PW.1 that he did not have talking terms with other family members and as such, he did not inform about construction of apartment in Item No.4 and 5 of plaint A schedule properties cannot be believed.
39.PW.1 further deposed that after differences arose between 1st defendant and plaintiff, 1st defendant taking advantage of nominal lease created for account purpose in respect of Item No.2 of plaint A schedule, filed a suit against him in O.S.167/2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram and also obtained a direction to deposit the admitted rents, according to accounts of mill, being run by him. He deposed that unable to deny the accounts he deposited the rent into court till he came to know that 1st defendant, mischievously treating Item No.2 of plaint A schedule property as his own property, executed a settlement deed dt.11.11.2009 vide Ex.A-3 in favour of 3rd defendant. He further deposed that the contention of 1st defendant that he is estopped from seeking partition of joint family properties on the ground that he has admitted that there was a partition and on such ground he is not entitled to seek for any relief in this suit is absurd. He deposed that he instructed his advocate who drafted the written statement in O.S.167/2009 that while 1st defendant promised to effect partition of all the properties held by the joint family, after the marriage of 3rd defendant, asked him to treat the properties in his possession as given towards part of
Family Court, Vzm 29 O.S.No.88 of 2012 his share. After getting the written statement read over and explained, he noticed that the language employed in his written statement is loosely worded instead of adhoc arrangement right.
40.Regarding the lease of mill, DW-1 deposed that plaintiff approached him and requested him to lease out the mill constructed by him in Item No.2 of plaint A schedule property on monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- and he obliged for the same in view of his relationship with plaintiff though the property is fetching more than Rs.24,000/- towards rent per month and delivered physical possession of the same to the plaintiff on 9.2.2000 and a rent note dt.24.2.2000 was also executed evidencing the same. He deposed that in the written statement filed by plaintiff in O.S.167/2009 plaintiff did not deny the lease and on the other hand admitted that he has been paying rents without any default. DW-1 further deposed that plaintiff also admitted in his written statement in O.S.167/2009 that there was partition of joint family properties and further admitted in unequivocal terms that some of the properties fell to his share and also gave list of the properties which fell to the share of his family members and as such plaintiff is estopped from laying a new claim for partition. DW-1 further deposed that he also filed I.A.1358/2010 under Order XV-A of CPC seeking to direct the defendant ie., plaintiff herein to pay entire arrears of rent and the same was allowed on merits and that plaintiff did not prefer any appeal or revision and on the other hand paid some rents to him.
41.Ex.B-2 is the certified copy of plaint in O.S.167/2009 which was filed by 1st defendant herein against plaintiff herein stating that he is absolute owner of Item No.2 of plaint A schedule properties herein and he leased out the same to plaintiff herein for rent of Rs.15,000/- etc. and that plaintiff committed willful default in payment of rents and as such he filed suit for eviction of the plaintiff and for arrears of rent. Ex.B-3 is certified copy of written statement in O.S.167/2009 filed by plaintiff herein (1st defendant in that suit). At page 2 it was averred in the written statement in Ex.B-3
Family Court, Vzm 30 O.S.No.88 of 2012 as follows:
“This defendant submits that himself, 2 nd defendant are the sons,
Lakshmikantham and Vasavi Kanatham are the daughters of plaintiff. The marriage of Lakshmi Kantham and Vasavi Kantham were performed by giving more valuable, cash and sare, etc. Later during the partial partition of the joint family properties, the house situated in Oruganti vari street and a house site measuring 728 Sq.yards situated near Ring road fell to the share of 1 st defendant. Half share in the plaint schedule property, house situated in Gurajada Apparao road and shop room located in PW market fell to the share of plaintiff. The remaining half share in the plaint schedule property and house site measuring 416 Sq.yards situated near
Ring road, Vizianagaram were fell to the share of 2 nd defendant. The vacant site in an extent of 1200 square yards situated in Aditya Garden, Dharmapuri road, 150 square yards site near ring road and wet land in an extent of Ac.1.07 cents situated in Gunkalam village are set a part towards the joint family debts. Four house sites situated near MIMS Hospital, Nellimarla are agreed to be given to Lakshmi
Kantham and Vasavi Kantham at the time of the said oral partition, the shop room situated besides Maruthi Deep, Vizianagaram and house sites in various layouts in and around Vizianagaram are kept in joint with an understanding to partition them in later stage. Thus the plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the entire schedule mentioned property”.
At page no.3 of written statement at para 3 it was averred as follows:
“This defendant submits that he has been paying rents without any default and there is no stipulation of lease period at any point of time and in those circumstances at no stretch of imagination the possession of the 1 st defendant can be called as unauthorized or illegal. There is no default in payment of rents much less willful default in payment of rents”.
Ex.B-4 is certified copy of order passed in I.A.1358/2010 in O.S.167/2009 in the petition filed under Order XV-A CPC directing the 1st defendant (plaintiff herein) to pay entire arrears of rents and also continue to pay rent at Rs.1500/- every month. Ex.B-4 reveals that said order has been passed on merits.
42.In Ex.B-3 written statement filed by the plaintiff herein, it was contended that he has been paying rent regularly to the 1st defendant and also that there was partial partition of the properties and he also mentioned list of the properties and reserved his
Family Court, Vzm 31 O.S.No.88 of 2012 right to file a suit for partition at a later stage. During his cross examination he admitted that he filed Ex.B-3 written statement and that he deposited rents before the court for a certain period. He volunteered that his earlier advocate prepared the written statement not in accordance with his instructions but he signed on it without knowing the contents. He further deposed that after depositing rents before the court, he approached the present advocate and then only he came to know that his earlier advocate prepared Ex.B-3 written statement against his instructions and filed the same into court.
43. A reading of Ex.B-3 written statement and the list of the particulars of the properties given therein reveals that it cannot be prepared by any advocate unless and until specific instructions are given by the party i.e., plaintiff herein. So, now he simply cannot escape by saying that his earlier advocate was at fault. Further, it is also not his contention that he has taken any steps against the earlier advocate. Moreover, he himself admitted that he paid rents into court as per orders in I.A.1358/2010 in
O.S.167/2009 without even preferring any revision against the same. The present suit
has been filed by the plaintiff seeking partition of plaint schedule properties pleading that they are joint family properties. So, the main issue that arises for consideration in the present suit is nature of properties i.e., whether they are self-acquired properties or joint family properties and plaintiff was in a possession of mill in Item No.2 of plaint A schedule property as lessee or owner. So, even as per arguments of the learned counsel for plaintiff, referred in the earlier paragraphs, Ex.B-3 written statement can be taken into consideration for effective adjudication of the issue in the present suit.
44.In view of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs this court finds that plaintiff failed to prove that the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties and that items 2, 8,10, 11 of plaint A schedule and Items 1,2,4, 6 and 7 of plaint B schedule properties are self acquired properties of 1st defendant and Item No.3 of plaint B schedule property is self acquired property of 3rd defendant.
Family Court, Vzm 32 O.S.No.88 of 2012
45.Issue No.1:
Whether the Items 1,7, and 9 of plaint A schedule & Item No.4 of plaint B schedule are self acquired properties of 2 nd defendant and 2 nd defendant has any stridhana properties?
Admittedly the 2nd defendant died in the year 2016 during pendency of the suit. The 1st defendant who was examined on behalf of defendants in the year 2019 and who claimed to have succeeded to the properties of 2nd defendant by virtue of
Ex.B-1 Will, deposed that Items 1,7 and 9 of plaint A schedule mentioned properties,
Item No.4 of plaint B schedule properties are self acquired properties of 2nd defendant purchased under various registered sale deeds. He deposed that 2nd defendant acquired all these properties with her Stridhana and also out of her personal savings and monies given by her parents, who were very rich at the time of her marriage. He further deposed that 2nd defendant sold Item No.7 of plaint A schedule property to
Smt.Dantuluri Sri Tanuja under registered sale deed dt.22.1.2013 (certified copy of said document is marked as Ex-B-6) and she also sold Item No.9 of plaint A schedule properties. As per the recitals in Ex.B-6 registered sale deeds it was mentioned that 2nd defendant purchased Item No.7 of plaint A schedule properties from Aija Mamata represented by agreement of sale cum General power of attorney holder U.V.Tirumala
Rao @ Tataji on 1.8.2006 vide document No.6173/2006 with her స్త్రీ�అలం�కారద్ర�వ్యం�ము.
Ex.B-5 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dt.8.5.1992 executed by one
U.Mohana Rao in favour of 2nd defendant. He further deposed that Item No.4 of plaint
B schedule property was purchased by 2nd defendant from P.Suryanarayana and
Golakoti Subrahmanya Durga Prasad under two registered sale deeds dt.31.7.2009.
Ex.B-13 is encumbrance certificate obtained on 30.4.2019 which discloses the transaction under said sale deeds. But the learned counsel for the plaintiff did not choose to cross examine DW-1 regarding any of the said documents.
46.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that on reading Ex.A-4 partition
Family Court, Vzm 33 O.S.No.88 of 2012 deed there is ample evidence that the family has nucleus and we can reach to an irresistible conclusion that joint family exists and has property. He further submitted that there is no evidence adduced by defendants to show that 2nd defendant has any sthridhana property and as such it is not proper to throw the burden on the plaintiff to prove by placing negative evidence that the properties were acquired by 2nd defendant with joint family funds. He further submitted that the sale deeds in the name of 2nd defendant were purchased after plaintiff joined in business and as such it is clear that the properties in the name of 2nd defendant were purchased with joint family funds. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel relied upon a decision reported in AIR
1961 SC 1268 between Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai and another Vs. Desai
Malleppa alias Malesappa and another where in it was held by the Hon’ble Apex
Court that “where a manager claims that any immovable property has ben acquired by him with his own separate funds and not with the help of the joint family funds of which he was in possession and charge, it is for him to prove by clear and satisfactory evidence his plea that the purchase money proceeded from his separate fund. The onus, of proof must in such a case be placed on the manager and not on his coparceners”.
47.Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 4 submitted that the plaintiff failed to prove that there was joint family nucleus and that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the properties in the name of 2nd defendant were purchased with joint family funds and as he failed to do so, the court has to consider that the 2nd defendant is the absolute owner of the properties in her name. The learned counsel relied upon a decision reported in 2016 (3) ALD 1 between Sushila Bai Vasudev Rao
Bodhanker (died) per LRs V. Govind Rao Bodhanker and others wherein it was held by Hon’ble High Court of Judicature Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad that there is no presumption in case of properties standing in name of female members and it is for the party who claims properties as joint family properties
Family Court, Vzm 34 O.S.No.88 of 2012 to specifically plead particulars and details in pleading and establish same by adducing necessary evidence. It was further held that in the absence of such pleadings, there is no need for detailed scrutiny as to how female members acquired the property in question and if the plaintiff adduced no evidence, no further question arises and female member in whose name property stands must be held to be beneficial owner of property in question.
48.It is not in dispute that the above said properties stood in the name of 2nd defendant. DW-1 deposed that Item No.7 and 9 of plaint A schedule properties were sold by 2nd defendant and Item No.4 of Plaint B schedule properties was also sold by her in the year 2009. During discussion in the preceding paragraphs, it was held by this court that plaintiff failed to prove the existence of joint family nucleus. Further, except Item No.1 of plaint A schedule property purchased under Ex.B-5 on 8.5.1992 remaining properties in the name of 2nd defendant were purchased subsequent to the year 2000. Here it is necessary to note that the partition between 1st defendant/DW-1, his brothers and father took place on 9.9.1993 and the property under Ex.B-5 was purchased prior to the said partition. It is the evidence of PW.1 that DW-1, his brothers and father did joint family business and while doing so DW-1 acquired the properties in the names of his wife i.e., 2nd defendant, his brothers and so on and that 2nd defendant had no source of income to purchase any property. If the version of
PW.1 is true, the property under Ex.B-5 would have been considered as joint family property and the same would have been partitioned under Ex.A-4. But the contents of
Ex.A-4 partition deed reveal that the property under Ex.B-5 was not included for partition between 1st defendant, his father and brothers. At this point it would be relevant to refer to the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 also. PW.2/brother of 2nd defendant deposed in his chief examination that 2nd defendant did not have any source of income to acquire any properties and that his parents only performed the marriages of his sisters and did not present any gold, cash etc and their family sustained huge
Family Court, Vzm 35 O.S.No.88 of 2012 loss during the life time of his father. But during his cross examination he deposed that he was aged only 8 years by the date of 2nd defendant's marriage. He further deposed that his family had reputation and they were financially sound in their village.
He also categorically stated that the 1st and 2nd defendants did not provide financial assistance to him when he sustained loss in his business and he had strained relationship with them as they did not help him. The said evidence of PW.2 shows that his chief examination is contrary to his cross examination regarding the financial status of his parents by the time of marriage of 2nd defendant and also that he had strained relationship with his sister and brother-in-law/defendants 1 and 2. PW.3, the step mother of 1st defendant also deposed that the in-laws of 1st defendant did not present any gold or cash at the time of his marriage. She also deposed that at the time of partition between her husband and his sons , difference arose between them as some of the properties acquired by 1st defendant were secreted and on knowing the same her husband pacified the other two sons and stated that 1st defendant would reap the consequences of his selfishness and she believed that accordingly Ex.A-4 partition deed came to be executed. She also deposed that 1st defendant has no independent source of income to acquire any property. But during her cross examination, contrary to her chief examination she deposed that 1st defendant did not secret any properties from his father and that there was no disputes between her husband and his sons after the partition. She also stated that there was no issuing notices or filing of cases between them. She further deposed that by the time of marriage of 1st defendant, his father in law was doing kirana business and money lending business and that he also had a cinema hall, jute mill, groundnut business and he also had house and agricultural lands. Therefore, their evidence goes to show that the parents of 2nd defendant were rich by the date of her marriage and as such it cannot be believed that her parents did not give any financial assistance to her at the time of marriage or subsequently. Hence, with due respect, this court finds that the
Family Court, Vzm 36 O.S.No.88 of 2012 decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is not applicable to the facts of the present case. So, in the present case it can be said that 2nd defendant is absolute owner of Item Nos.1, 7 and 9 of plaint A schedule property and Item No.4 of plaint B schedule property. Hence, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of defendants.
49.Issue No.4:
Whether Will dt.03.03.2012 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff?
DW-1 deposed that 2nd defendant executed Ex.B-1 registered Will dt.3.3.2012 and it was signed by her in a sound and disposing state of mind and she died on 25.12.2016. He submitted that after her death the registered Will i.e., Ex.B-1
Will which is her last Will testament came into force and by virtue of the same he became absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties i.e., Item No.1 and 7 of plaint
A schedule properties. During cross examination DW-1 deposed that by the date of execution of Ex.B-1 Will himself and his wife were only residing together and around 2009 or 2010 2nd defendant was attacked with paralysis. He deposed that after one or one and half years she got cured and attended all her normal duties. He also deposed that he has gone through Ex.B-1 Will during life time of 2nd defendant and she told him that she has not bequeathed any share to their children as there are properties in the name of plaintiff, second son is employee and daughters are married and as such she bequeathed property to DW-1 and after his demise remaining properties to second son i.e., 3rd defendant.
50. Plaintiff did not file re-joinder disputing the said Will and basing on the same defendants contended that the said Will is admitted by plaintiff. However, as per section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, Will is a compulsorily attestable document and has to be proved by examining at least one of attestor even if it is admitted or not. To prove the said Will 1st defendant examined 2nd attestor of Ex.B-1 Will as DW-2. DW-2 deposed that he knows both parties to the suit. He further deposed that 2nd defendant expressed her intention to execute a Will and requested him to act as one of the
Family Court, Vzm 37 O.S.No.88 of 2012 attestors for the said Will. He went along with her to the office of document writer
Balivada Sunil Kumar on 3.3.2012. On information furnished by her, scribe prepared a rough and read over the contents and after her satisfaction the scribe prepared the fair and thereafter testatrix put her thumb marks on the said Will in the presence of himself and one K.Sanakar Rao who signed on the Will as 1st attestor. He further deposed that he signed as 2nd attestor in the said Will in the presence of testatrix and that himself and other attestor K.Sankar Rao saw while testatrix put her thumb marks on the Will and thereafter Will was presented before Sub-Registrar, Vizianagaram for registration wherein also himself and K.Sankar Rao identified testator and signed as identifying witnesses.
51.During cross examination he deposed that he is a tailor and 1st defendant and his family used to get their clothes stitched in his shop. One Kanakala Apparao document writer is son-in-law of his brother and scribe Balivada Sunil Kumar was working with the said Kanakala Apparao on the date of execution of Will. He deposed that even by the date of cross examination, 1st defendant was getting his clothes stitched by him and he got acquaintance with the 1st defendant for the last 20 years and he used to go to the house of 1st defendant to collect clothes for stitching. He deposed that when he went to the house of 2nd defendant, she asked him to attest the
Will which she is going to execute. 2nd defendant was accompanied by her daughter and 1st attestor of the Will, K.Sankar Rao. He categorically stated that 2nd defendant came to the document writer at 11 a.m. and they entered into Sub-Registrar office at 1-00 p.m. and left at 2-00 p.m. He deposed that 2nd defendant gave informatio0n to the scribe to draft the Will and that she was hale and healthy at that time. He deposed that she was sitting nearer to the document writer while 2nd defendant furnished information and the scribe prepared the document. He deposed that 2nd defendant delivered documents to the document writer. During cross examination he deposed that 2nd defendant or daughter of 2nd defendant who accompanied her did not inform
Family Court, Vzm 38 O.S.No.88 of 2012 anything to the document writer but during course of further cross examination he deposed that scribe was preparing document in the computer while 2nd defendant furnished information. The said cross examination of DW-2 reveals that learned counsel for the plaintiff failed to elicit anything from him to disbelieve his evidence and as such this court finds that Ex.B-1 Will has been proved as required under law and as such same is binding on the plaintiff.
52.Issue No.5:
Whether sale transactions covered by Ex.B-19 and B.20 are hit by principles of lispendency and whether they would bind the defendants?
Issue No.6
Whether M/s Gopuram Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vizianagaram is a proper and necessary party, so far as Items 3 to 5 of plaint A schedule properties, to this suit?
Since both these issues are inter related this court finds it is necessary to decide both the issues together. While answering the above issues 1 to 3, it was held by this court that plaintiff failed to prove the existence of joint family nucleus and that
Item Nos. 3 to 5 of plaint A schedule properties i.e., items covered under Exs.B-19 and
B-20 are the properties acquired by plaintiff himself. So, M/s Gopuram Agro Industries
Pvt. Ltd., Vizianagaram is not a necessary party to the present suit and transactions under Ex.B-19 and B-20 are not hit by principles of lispendency. Hence, these issues are answered accordingly.
53.Issue No.7:
Whether the plaintiff discharged debts shown in plaint E schedule properties during pendency of suit?
PW.1 got marked Ex.A-11 to A-16 statements of account copies and deposed that amounts due to the bank as shown in schedule E of plaint have been discharged with the sale consideration received under Ex.B-19 and B-20 transactions.
The discharge of the loan amount by the plaintiff was not disputed by the defendants
Family Court, Vzm 39 O.S.No.88 of 2012 but it was submitted by the learned counsel for defendants 1 and 4, that Ex.A-11 to A- 16 statements of account reveal that account name was mentioned as M/s. Sri Balaji
Dall Mills, proprietor Gogula Srinivas Kantha Rao and the said loans were borrowed by plaintiff in his personal capacity but not for the purpose of joint family business.
Since discharge of debts shown in the plaint schedule is not disputed, it can be said that plaintiff discharged the debts shown in plaint schedule E during pendency of the suit, but in his personal capacity and not on behalf of joint family.
54.Issue No.8
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of plaint schedule properties as prayed for?
In view of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, this court finds that plaintiff failed to prove that plaint A and B schedule properties were purchased with the joint family funds and that there was joint family nucleus and as such plaintiff is not entitled for partition of plaint schedule properties as prayed for.
55.Issue No.9: To what relief?
IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II (on deputation), transcribed by him, corrected,
signed and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28 th day of June, 2024.
Sd/- M.Meena Devi
Judge, Family Court-cum-
III Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Plaintiff:For Defendants:-
PW.1 : Gogula Srinivasa Kantha RaoDW-1: Gogula Surya Rao PW.2 : U.Venkata Satyanaryana MurthyDW-2: Bugatha Gopi PW.3 : G.Narayanamma DW-3: Gogula Rama Rao DW-4: Gogula Ramanajee Rao
Family Court, Vzm 40 O.S.No.88 of 2012
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Plaintiff:
Ex.A-1: Downloaded copy of statement of account of plaintiff’s business dt.01.10.2012 to 06.12.2012 Ex.A-2: Statement of account of housing loan dt.06.12.2012 Ex.A-3: Certified copy of settlement deed executed by D-1 in favour of D-3 Ex.A-4: Registration extract of Registered partition deed dt.9.9.1993. Ex.A-5: Marked portion of the entries of Day book of Balaji Dalls Ex.A-6: Copy of return filed by DW-1 before Income Tax authorities for assessment year 2006-2007. Ex.A-7: Income tax returns with financial statements and auditor’s report for the assessment year 2008-2009 (financial year 2007-2008) Ex.A-8: Income tax returns with financial statements and auditor’s report for the assessment year 2009-2010 (financial year 2008-2009) Ex.A-9: Income tax returns with financial statements and auditor’s report for the assessment year 2013-2014 (financial year 2012-2013) Ex.A-10: Day book for the year 2000-2001 containing 277 pages. Ex.A-11: Statement of account No.35649845136 for the period 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019 (statement of accounts previously filed and now being filed) Ex.A-12: Statement of account No40023575850 for the period from 01.01.2020 to 24.04.2023 Ex.A-13: Statement of account No.39392969536 for the period from 01.01.2020 to 24.04.2023 Ex.A-14: Statement of account No.39326773280 for the period from 01.01.2020 to 24.04.2023 Ex.A-15: Statement of account No.40023577438 for the period from 01.01.2020 Ex.A-16: Statement of account No.30034643789 for the period from 01.01.2012 to 20.09.2016.
For Defendants:
Ex.B-1: Registered Will dt.03.03.2012 executed by D-2 Ex.B-2: Certified copy of plaint in O.S.167/2009 on the file fo Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram. Ex.B-3: Certified copy of written statement in O.S.167/2009 on the file fo Senior Civil
Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram.
Ex.B-4: Certified copy of order dt.29.03.2011 along with petition in I.A. 1358/2010 in
O.S.167/2009 on the file fo Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram.
Ex.B-5: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.08.05.1992 executed by U.Mohana Rao in favour of 2nd defendant relating to Item No.1 of Plaint A schedule Ex.B-6: Public copy of sale deed dt.22.01.2013 executed by 2nd defendant infavour of Dantuluri Sritanuja in respect of Item No.7 of plaint A schedule property. Ex.B-7: Public copy of gift settlement deed dt.09.09.2008 executed in favour of 4th defendant Ex.B-8: Public copy of Encumbrance certificate dt.30.04.2019 relating to Item No.10 of Plaint A schedule property. Ex.B-9: Public copy of sale deed dt.23.03.2006 executed by G.Sujatha in favour of DW-1 in respect of Item No.11 of plaint A schedule property. Ex.B-10: Public copy of sale deed dt.29.07.2010 executed by NVS Subramanyeswari in respect of Item No.1 of Plaint B schedule property.
Family Court, Vzm 41 O.S.No.88 of 2012
Ex.B-11: Public copy of Encumbrance certificate dt.27.04.2019 for Item No.2 of Plaint B schedule property. (part) Ex.B-12: Public copy of Encumbrance certificate dt.27.04.2019 for Item No.2 of Plaint B schedule property.(part) Ex.B-13: Public copy of Encumbrance certificate dt.30.04.2019 for Item No.4 of Plaint B schedule property.(part) Ex.B-14: Public copy of Encumbrance certificate dt.27.04.2019 for Item No.5 of Plaint B schedule property.(part) Ex.B-15: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.29.07.2010 executed by DW-1 in favour of NVS Subrahmanyeswari in respect of Item No.6 of Plaint B schedule property. Ex.B-16: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.06.03.2009 executed by DW-1 in favour of Nalla Sri Nagesh in respect of Item No.6 of Plaint B schedule property. Ex.B-17: Public copy of Encumbrance certificate dt.27.4.2019 for Item No.7 of Plaint B schedule property. Ex.B-18: Certified copy of sale deed dt.17.09.1984 executed by Koyyana Appalasuri and others in favour of father of DW-1, DW-1 and brother of DW-1 Ex.B-19: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.29.04.2022 executed by plaintiff Ex.B-20: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.29.04.2022 executed by plaintiff
Sd/- M.Meena Devi
Judge, Family Court-cum-
III Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram.