Sri M. Pavan Kumar

Fair1O.S.No.12/2011

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(SENIOR DIVISION)

(F.T.C.)::BAPATLA

Present: Sri M. Pavan Kumar,

Addl. Civil Judge(Senior Division)(F.T.C.), Bapatla.

Wednesday, this the 6th day of May, 2026.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.12 of 2011

Between:-

1.Kakaraparthi Chamundeswari, W/o Radhakrishna Murthy, … Plaintiff. Hindu, aged about 33 years, R/o Chirala, Bapatla District. AND

1.Bayya Srilakshmi Devi (Died)

2.Bommisetti Vijayalakshmi, W/o Narayana Murthy, Hindu, aged about 45 years, R/o Sharab Bazaar, Bapatla, Bapatla District.

3.Majeti Kumari Sai, W/o Srinivasa Rao Swamy, Hindu, aged about 44 years, Housewife, R/o Door No.11-16-26, Vadentamvari Street, Repalle, Bapatla District.

4.Bayya Kumara Satya Sai, S/o Durga Prasada Rao, Hindu, aged about 42 years, R/o Shikaramvari Street, Bapatla Town, Bapatla District.

5.Kotha Malathi Usha, W/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Housewife, C/o Srinivasa Cloth Emporium, Peteru Post, Repalle Mandal, Bapatla District.

6.Nallamalli Prema Latha, W/o Seshu Kumar, Hindu, aged about 39 years, Housewife, R/o Kandukuru, Opp.Sub-Collector Office, Kandukuru Mandal, Prakasam District (The 1 st defendant died on 27.01.2017, the plaintiff and D2 to D6 are the L.Rs of the deceased 1 st defendant already on record as per orders in I.A.No.591/2017, … Defendants.

dated 09.11.2017)

This suit came before me for final hearing on today and disposal in the presence of Sri N. Ranga Rao and G.S.S.V. Pradada Rao, Learned counsels for plaintiff, and T. Krishna Rao, Learned counsel for defendant No.4 and the defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 & 6 were set exparte and the 1st defendant reported died and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

Fair2O.S.No.12/2011

J U D G M E N T

1.The suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for partition of the plaint schedule properties into 6 (six) equal shares according to good and bad qualities and allot separate possession of one such share to the plaintiff (Amended as per orders in I.A.No.571/2017, dated 9.11.2017) for profits from the date of filing of the suit and for costs of the suit.

2. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows :

a)The 1st defendant is the mother, defendant Nos.2,3,5 and 6 are the sisters and 4th defendant is the brother of the plaintiff. One Bayya Durga Prasad Rao is the father of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6.

b)The plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff’s father, who got the same in a family partition between himself and his brothers about 50 years back and the plaintiff father used to manage the joint Hindu Family of himself, plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 as kartha of the family. Plaintiff, plaintiff father and defendants 2 to 6 are in joint and constructive possession of the plaint schedule properties. During the life time of plaintiff’s father, there were some understandings between himself and his brothers and the plaintiffs father and his family continued the title and possession of the schedule properties since the partition of the plaintiff’s father with his brothers. Plaintiff has got undivided 7/49th share in the plaint schedule properties. While so, plaintiff’s father died on 16.8.1993 intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants as his class-I heirs.

Thus, the plaintiff is entitled for 8/49th share in the plaint schedule properties.

Plaintiff’s marriage was performed on 15.8.1993 and the plaintiff’s family members

Fair3O.S.No.12/2011 promised her to give 1/7th share in the plaint schedule properties towards pasupukumkuma property at the time of her marriage. Defendant No.4 is managing the plaint schedule properties after the death of the plaintiff father.

Plaintiff demanded the defendants several times to partition the plaint schedule properties and to allot her separate 8/49th share but the defendants did not cooperate for the same and are postponing the same on some pretext or other.

The defendants are acting adverse to the interests to the plaintiff in the plaint schedule properties and are hatching up plans to evade the share of the plaintiff.

Item No.1 of the plaint schedule is fetching a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- and item

No.II of the plaint schedule properties fetching a monthly rent of Rs.4,500/- and the defendants 1 and 4 are collecting rents from the tenants and are paying a some paultry amounts to the plaintiff now and then. It is no longer safe for the plaintiff to keep the schedule properties joint with the defendants. Hence, the suit.

c)The plaintiff further submitted that after filing of the suit, the 1st defendant died on 27.1.2017 leaving behind the plaintiff, defendants 2 to 6 as her class-I legal heirs and her 1/49th share in the plaint schedule properties devolved upon the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 and they are entitled for the said share equally. Hence, plaintiff is entitled for 1/6th share in the plaint schedule properties. (Amended as per orders in I.A.No.571/2017, dated 9.11.2017).

3.The 1st defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and the same is adopted by the 4th defendant and contended that :

i)The suit itself is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation.

Fair4O.S.No.12/2011 ii)The defendant further submitted that the husband of this defendant and father of 4th defendant herein got executed a last Will on 9.7.1993 when he was disposing state of mind which was notarized and well attested. According to the said Will,

dated 9.7.1993 the house property with Door No.12-5-11 and the site appurtenant

thereto in Sikharamvari Street was bequested to the 1st defendant with absolute rights to be enjoyed by the 1st defendant with absolute ownership after his death.

Accordingly, after the death of said Bayya Durga Prasad Rao, this 1st defendant took possession of the said property bequested by him to this 1st defendant and enjoying the same for which the 1st defendant is paying house tax etc., Therefore the plaintiff has no right to seek partition in respect of item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties.

ii)The defendant further submitted that likewise the father of 4th defendant herein by name Bayya Durga Prasad Rao made bequest of the terraced shop property with Door No.10-1-47 which is situated in Radham Bazar, Bapatla to the 4th defendant to be enjoyed by him with rights of limited ownership and possession, thereafter the said property be enjoyed by the 4th defendant’s children with absolute rights. Accordingly, after the death of said Bayya Durga Prasada Rao took possession of said property and enjoying the same. This defendant further submitted that the execution of the said Will dated 9.7.1993 by the deceased Bayya

Durga Prasada Rao is also known to his daughters by name 1)Smt. Bayya Vijaya

Lakshmi (D2), 2)Premalatha (D6), 3)Bayya Chamundeswari (plaintiff). Infact they were not married by then and they too signed on the said Will dated 9.7.1993 as attestors as such they have got full knowledge of the said Will and the contents

Fair5O.S.No.12/2011 thereon. Therefore the contention of the plaintiff in the suit that her father died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants herein to succeed the item

No.1 and item No.2 of plaint schedule properties is false.

iv)This defendant further submitted that by virtue of the said testament the defendants are asserting their rights, title and possession with item No.1 and item

No.2 of the plaint schedule properties. Hence, the plaintiff has no right to claim the relief of partition in the said plaint schedule properties.

v)This defendant further submitted that as per the said Will dated 9.7.1993 these defendants are enjoying the properties and collecting the rents being realized from the said plaint schedule properties as rightful owners.

vi)Therefore in these circumstances the claim of the plaintiff in the suit against the plaint schedule properties are unsustainable and vexatious. Hence, this defendants prays for dismissal of the suit with costs.

4.The 4th defendant filed additional written statement by contending that i.That the mother of this defendant who was the first defendant in the suit died on 27.01.2017 at Bapatla while so when she was alive and when she (1st defendant) was in a sound and disposing state of mind the deceased 1st defendant got executed registered WILL infavour of this defendant on 09.09.2015, bearing Document No.66/2015, Book No.III at Sub-Registrar of Bapatla, bequeathing the plaint schedule property to this defendant. The Xerox copy of the said WILL dated 09.09.2015 and Death Certificate of deceased 1st defendant are filed.

Fair6O.S.No.12/2011 ii.This defendant further submitted that after demise of 1st defendant in this suit, this defendant took possession of the same by virtue of the said WILL dated 09.09.2015 since then, this defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the said plaint schedule property and enjoying the same with absolute title and rights, as such this defendant alone is having absolute right, tittle and possession of the same. Therefore in view of the stated facts and circumstances this defendant is absolute title holder of the said plaint schedule property.

iii.This defendant further submitted that he is requesting the Honourable court to consider the earlier written statement adopted by this defendant of deceased first defendant.

5.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial by the learned predecessor:

1. Whether the Will dated 9.7.1993 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff.

2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to preliminary decree for partition of plaint schedule properties into 49 equal shares according to good and bad qualities and allot possession of 8 such shares to the plaintiffs.

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to profits from the date of filing of the suit.

5. To what relief.

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, the P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A1 was marked.

On behalf of the defendants, the D.W.1 to D.W.5 were examined and Ex.B1 to

Ex.B15 were marked.

7.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and the learned counsel for defendants.

Fair7O.S.No.12/2011

8.Issue No. 1 :

1.Whether the Will dated 9.7.1993 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff.

2.Whether the suit is barred by limitation.

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to preliminary decree for partition of plaint schedule properties into 49 equal shares according to good and bad qualities and allot possession of 8 such shares to the plaintiffs.

4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to profits from the date of filing of the suit.

During the pendency of the suit proceedings, the defendant No.1 reported died but there is no change in the division of shares at issue No.3 and that as no separate evidence is required for change of shares in view of death of defendant

NO.1, this court is inclined to recast the division of shares in the issue No.3 as follows:

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to preliminary decree for partition of plaint schedule properties into 6 equal shares and for allotment of one such share according to good and bad qualities.

For the sake of convenience and for better appreciation of evidence as the issue

No.1 to 4 were inter-related, the said issues were clubbed together for discussion.

In the case on hand, the plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1. Her evidence in chief is in tune with the averments of the plaint. She testified in her evidence that the plaint schedule properties comprising of item No.1 and 2 are the ancestral properties of her father by name Bayya Durga Prasad Rao, who acquired the same out of family partition with his brothers above 50 years back. The P.W.1 clarified that the 1st defendant is her mother, the defendant Nos.2,3, 5 and 6 are her sisters and 4th defendant is her brother. She clarified that her marriage was performed on

Fair8O.S.No.12/2011 15.8.1993 and the family members at the time of marriage, promised to give a share i.e., 1/7th share in the plaint schedule properties towards pasupukumkuma and added that her father died on 16.8.1993 as intestate leaving herself and the defendants on record as class-I heirs and further added that the defendant NO.4 being the only son to her father used to manage the plaint schedule properties after the demise of her father. She further testified that as the schedule properties are joint family properties, she is in joint and constructive possession with the defendants on record and she demanded the defendants several times for partition of the schedule properties for allotment of 1/7th share but the defendants did not cooperate for the same and has been postponing the same on some pretext or other. She further deposed that her father never executed a Will on 9.7.1993 and she never signed as one of the identified witness to the said Will and clarified that the alleged

Will is a forged and fabricated document got created by the defendant No.1 and 2 with the help of their henchmen. She further deposed that during the pendency of the suit proceedings, the 1st defendant died intestate on 27.1.2017 leaving behind herself and the defendant Nos.2 to 6 as successor to the estate, as such, she is entitled for 1/6th share in the schedule properties. She clarified that her mother i.e., defendant No.1 also did not execute any Will dated 9.9.2015 infavour of the 4th defendant bequeathing the item No.1 of the schedule property and further averred that the defendant No.1 have no exclusive right over the schedule properties to execute the Will. The P.W.1 also filed an additional evidence in chief and testified that she was born on 9.6.1976 and contended that she was minor as on the date of execution of the Will dated 9.7.1993 and to support his contention, she got exhibited

Fair9O.S.No.12/2011 the Ex.A1 document being the birth certificate without the name of the plaintiff issued by the Municipal authorities. During her cross-examination, she clarified that she do not know how many years back, the plaint schedule properties were partitioned between her father and his family members. She further clarified that she have no documentary proof with regard to the schedule properties to convey that they are joint family properties and they are in joint and constructive possession by herself and defendants. She admitted that her father died on 16.8.1993. It was elicited that she do not remember whether she issued a legal notice through her counsel to her mother on 28.7.2008. It was further elicited that even she do not remember whether her mother issued a reply notice for her legal notice on 6.8.2008. She denied the suggestion that in the legal notice issued by her in the name of defendants, she mentioned that the plaint schedule properties were purchased by her father Durga

Prasada Rao under a registered sale deed, as such, the plaint schedule properties were self acquired properties of her father Durga Prasada Rao. It was further elicited that she do not know whether her mother issued a reply notice dated 6.8.2008 by mentioning that her father executed a Will dated 9.7.1993 in a fit state of mind infavour of her mother and defendant No.4 pertaining to item No.1 and 2 of the schedule properties. She clarified that on the date of alleged Will on 9.7.1993, herself and her sisters i.e., 2nd defendant and 6th defendant were not married, as such, they conclude that her father never executed a Will. She denied the suggestion that she put her signature along with the 2nd and 6th defendants, as such, she have no right to seek for partition as the schedule properties were already

Fair10O.S.No.12/2011 bequeathed in the name of defendant No.1 and defendant NO.4 and there is no property liable for partition.

Per contra, the defendant No.4 examined as D.W.1. His evidence in chief is also in tune with the averments of the written statement filed by her mother as he adopted the same so also in tune with the additional written statement filed by him. The

D.W.1 got exhibited Ex.B1 to Ex.B15 and the same were received into evidence. He testified in his evidence that the plaint schedule properties were the self acquired properties of his father Durga Prasada Rao, as such, he got executed a Will on 9.7.1993 by bequeathing the item No.1 of the schedule property in the name of the 1st defendant with absolute rights and the item No.2 with limited rights in his favour and absolute rights to his children and added that to the said Will vide Ex.B10, the

D.W.1, the defendant No.2 and 6 also signed as identifying witness along with the attestors, as such the plaintiff have got knowledge about the execution of the Will under Ex.B10 but suppressed the material fact and contending that the death of

Durga Prasada Rao is intestate and the plaintiff is entitled for equal share in the plaint schedule properties. The D.W.1 also testified that as the 1st defendant got absolute rights over the item No.1 of the schedule property as per the recitals of

Ex.B10, the 1st defendant out of love and affection got executed a registered Will vide

Ex.B11 in his favour on 9.9.2015 pertaining to item No.1 of the schedule property and clarified that the 1st defendant died during the pendency of the suit proceedings as testate i.e., on 27.1.2017 as such, after the demise of her mother by virtue of the said Wills, he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the schedule property with

Fair11O.S.No.12/2011 absolute rights and denied the joint and constructive possession of the plaintiff over the schedule property.

The D.W.2 is the 1st attestor to Ex.B10, who tried to corroborate the version of

D.W.1 with regard to execution of the Will in all the material aspects. Coming to his cross-examination, he clarified that his signature on Ex.B10 as 1st attestor belongs to him. He further clarified that due to age factor he do not remember the date of execution of Ex.B10 so also the persons who were present on the date of execution.

He clearly denied the suggestion that the Ex.B10 Will does not contain the signature of Durga Prasada Rao and the same is forged by him.

The D.W.5 is the scribe to the Ex.B10, who testified in his evidence that he drafted the fair copy of the Will as a scribe at the house of Durga Prasada Rao about 30 years back and his cross-examination, it was elicited that he left some gap in between the signatures and the contents to the end. He denied the suggestion that the Ex.B10 Will was created after the demise of Durga Prasada Rao.

The D.W.3 and D.W.4 are the 2nd attestor and the scribe to the Will executed by the 1st defendant during her life time infavour of defendant NO.4 i.e., D.W.1. Both of them categorically deposed that the 1st defendant executed a Will on 9.9.2015 bequeathing the part of the schedule property in the name of D.W.1.

After analysis of evidence and marshaling of facts what emerges clear is that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship in between the parties i.e., the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.2 to 6 are the children of 1st defendant and Durga

Prasada Rao. As already stated the present suit is filed by the plaintiff for partition of

Fair12O.S.No.12/2011 schedule properties comprising of two items into equal shares in between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.2 to 6 as the defendant No.1 reported died during the pendency of the suit proceedings. In the case on hand, the version of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of her father by name

Durga Prasad Rao and contended that as the said Durga Prasad Rao died intestate on 16.8.1993, the plaint schedule properties are liable for partition equally among the children of said Durga Prasad Rao, as they succeed the estate of Durga Prasad

Rao. Per contra, the version of the defendants on record i.e., 1st defendant by way of her pleadings and the evidence of 4th defendant is that the schedule properties were not the ancestral properties but they are self acquired properties of Durga Prasad

Rao and added that the death of Durga Prasada Rao is not an intestate death but it is a testate as the said Durga Prasada Rao during his life time, got executed a Will under Ex.B10 and that during the life time of the 1st defendant, she got executed another Will infavour of the defendant NO.4 vide Ex.B11 wherein the Ex.B10 and

Ex.B11 comprises of the schedule properties, as such, the plaintiff have no right to seek for partition and the suit is not maintainable.

Thus, in the first instance, the point germane for determination is whether the plaint schedule properties were the ancestral properties or self acquired property of

Durga Prasad Rao. It is the case of the plaintiff to prove that the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Durga Prasad to seek the relief of partition.

In the case on hand, the pleadings of the plaintiff goes to show that the schedule properties are ancestral properties. There is no whisper in the pleadings about the issuance of legal notice in the name of the defendants by the plaintiff before filing of

Fair13O.S.No.12/2011 the suit and infact, the plaintiff as P.W.1 not exhibited any legal notice though issued in the name of the defendants for the reasons best known to the plaintiff. But the record goes to show that the 4th defendant who examined as D.W.1 got exhibited the office copy of the legal notice dated 28.7.2008 as Ex.B14 got issued by the plaintiff through her counsel in the name of defendant Nos.1 to 6. When perused the legal notice issued by the plaintiff, the recitals are clear that her father Durga Prasada Rao during his life time purchased the properties through registered sale deed bearing

Doc.No.1199/1981 and 927 of 1992 before the Sub-Registrar Office, Bapatla. This clearly goes to show that the schedule properties are not the ancestral properties but the self acquired properties of Durga Prasada Rao. The record further goes to show that for the legal notice issued by the plaintiff vide Ex.B14, a reply was given to the plaintiff and others by the defendant No.1 under Ex.B15 that the death of Durga

Prasada Rao is not intestate but it is a testate as the said Durga Prasada Rao during his life time got executed a Will vide Ex.B10 bequeathing the item No.1 of the schedule property with absolute rights after his demise and limited rights in item No.2 of the schedule property to the defendant No.4 and thereafter with absolute rights to the children of defendant No.4. The further recitals of Ex.B15 also goes to show that the plaintiff along with the defendant No.2 and 6 also signed on the Will under

Ex.B10 along with attestors, as such, the plaintiff is well within the knowledge about the testamentary disposition but suppressed the same for wrongful gain in filing the present suit for partition. Here the point to be noted is that in the first instance, the plaintiff clearly suppressed about the issuance of legal notice in her pleadings so also in her cross-examination technically deposed that she do not remember about

Fair14O.S.No.12/2011 the issuance of legal notice to the defendants on record so also with regard to reply got issued by the defendant No.1. The point to be stressed upon herein is the reply notice to the plaintiff clearly goes to show that there is a testamentary disposition by

Durgra Prasada Rao during his life time infavour of defendant No.1 and defendant

No.4 got issued in the year 2008. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff in the year 2011 without any whisper in the pleadings i.e., her plaint about the testamentary disposition. Even there is no denial about the Will under Ex.B10 in atleast a routine manner in the pleadings. But the plaintiff suddenly woke up after receiving the written statement from the defendant NO.1 which was adopted by defendant NO.4 and filed a rejoinder and denied the execution of the Will dated 9.7.1993 and contended that the said Will is a forged and fabricated document. Even in the said rejoinder also, there is no specific plea that the alleged signature of the plaintiff on

Ex.B10 does not belongs to her but rejoinder contained general plea of forged fabricated document. However, as the burden is on the part of the defendants on record to prove that the death of Durga Prasada Rao is not intestate but it is a testate, the defendants have chosen to examine the D.W.2 being one of the attestor to Ex.B10 and the scribe as D.W.5 to Ex.B10. Here, the learned counsel for plaintiff argued that the 1st attestor to Ex.B10 i.e., D.W.2, during his cross-examination failed to identify the person, who are present at the time of execution of the Will. Here, the law is clear that the purpose of attestation for the transfer of property is nothing but confirming the identity which insures that the executant signed the document and no one else. In the case on hand, the cross-examination of D.W.2 and D.W.5 is crystal clear that they specifically denied that the ex.B10 does not contain the signature of

Fair15O.S.No.12/2011 the executant Durga Prasada Rao. Added to this, the learned counsel for plaintiff further argued that the Ex.B10 is a notarized Will and the stamp of the notary on record is not in accordance with the amended provisions as per notaries Act. For this, it is clear that a Will does not require any notary or registration. If it is the case, the essentials for notary and its updates does not confer any importance to the document under Ex.B10 or does not reduce the value of the document. Hence, the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff does not form much importance to the issue on hand. The plaintiff is beating around the bush without making any note of her signature on Ex.B10 as the pleadings again is silent about the denial of signature of the plaintiff on Ex.B10. As already stated above, the P.W.1 at the time of letting chief evidence make a plea about the Will under Ex.B10 as fabricate document. If really, the version of the plaintiff is that the Ex.B10 does not contain the signature of the plaintiff, what prevented the plaintiff to submit the questioned signature on Ex.B10 with that of her admitted signatures for comparison to an expert.

The case is no so. This give a presumption that the plaintiff signed on the Will under

Ex.B10 and that she got knowledge about the execution of the Will under Ex.B10.

Here, the contention of the learned counsel for plaintiff is also that the plaintiff at the time of alleged Will under Ex.B10 is a minor and to support the same, the P.W.1 got exhibited the Ex.A1 being the birth certificate issued by Municipal authorities,

Bapatla. When perused the said Ex.A1, it does not contain the name of the plaintiff.

If the certificate was given by the any hospital or nursing home, generally, at the time of birth of child as no name was assigned to the child at that time, the hospital authorities will only recognize the birth of a child to the parents. But the Ex.A1 is not

Fair16O.S.No.12/2011 the certificate issued by Srinivasa Nursing Home being the place of birth of the child but it is prepared by the Sub-Registrar of Birth and Death of Bapatla Municipality and compared by the concerned person and thereafter it was issued by the Municipal

Commissioner of Registrar of Births and Deaths of Bapatla Municipality on 25.10.2011 i.e., subsequent to the filing of the suit without containing the name of the plaintiff. The Ex.A1 is crystal clear that surprisingly, till the year 2011 from the date of birth of alleged plaintiff i.e., since 1976, the name of the plaintiff was not recorded in the municipal records as daughter of Durga Prasada Rao and Sri Lakshmi Devi, which creates a doubt to the version of the plaintiff in establishing that she was minor at the time of execution of the Will under Ex.B10. Apart from this, the Ex.B10 also contain the signatures of defendant No.2 and 6. When the plaintiff is claiming the schedule properties for partition as intestate death of Durga Prasada Rao and that the defendants are contending that the death of Durga Prasada Rao as testate, the burden is not only on the defendants to prove the Will, it is equally upon the plaintiff to disprove the Will as the onus of proof shift to the plaintiff with regard to disproof of

Wills under Ex.B10 and Ex.B11. The record is silent that the remaining two signatories i.e., defendant No.2 and 6 were not pressed into service to support the testimony of the plaintiff to disprove the Will by the plaintiff for the reasons best known to the plaintiff. Infact, the defendant No.2, 3, 5 and 6 remained exparte to the suit proceedings and the defendant No.1 being the mother to the plaintiff, who died during the pendency of the suit proceedings is also not supporting the case of the plaintiff and the plaintiff alone is agitating the claim for partition creates a doubt about the story of the plaintiff. Thus, the oral evidence adduced by D.W.1, D.W.2 and

Fair17O.S.No.12/2011

D.W.5 coupled with documentary evidence vide Ex.B10 and the oral evidence adduced by D.W.3 and D.W.4 coupled with documentary evidence vide Ex.B11 clearly goes to show that there is a testamentary disposition by the said Durga

Prasada Rao. Hence, in view of the discussion made supra, it is clear that the plaint schedule properties are the self acquired properties of Durga Prasada Rao and the death of Durga Prasada Rao is not intestate but it is a testate, as such, the plaint schedule properties were not liable for partition. When the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of partition, she is not equally not entitled for the profits from the date of filing of the suit. Coming to the aspect of limitation framed as a issue by the learned predecessor, there is no specific averments in the pleadings of the defendants how the suit is barred by limitation. In the absence of such, the aspect of limitation cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, the issue Nos.1 to 4 were answered.

9.Issue No.5:

To what relief?

In view of the discussion made under issue Nos.1 to 4, the suit is dismissed.

In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs in the interest of justice.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade - III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 6th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- M. Pavan Kumar

Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division)

(F.T.C.), Bapatla.

Fair18O.S.No.12/2011

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:For Defendants:

P.W.1: K. Chamundeswari D.W.1 : Bayya Kumara Satya Sai D.W.2 : T. Chandra Sekhara Rao D.W.3 : I. Ranga Rao D.W.4 : K. Venkata Vijaya Sai Krishna D.W.5 : B.S. Narayana Battu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1 : Birth Certificate dated 09.06.1976 issued by Municipal Commissioner, Bapatla.

For Defendants:

Ex.B1:Registered gift deed executed by B. Satyanarayana infavour of Durga Prasad Rao (my father) dated 23.06.1981.

Ex.B2:Registered sale deed executed by Sakunthala infavour of Durga Prasad Rao dated 13.8.1990.

Ex.B3:Registered sale deed executed by Padmavathi infavour of Durga Prasad Rao dated 30.3.1992.

Ex.B4:Registered gift deed executed by Rangamma infavour of Durga Prasad Rao dated 19.5.1992.

Ex.B5:Registered sale deed executed by Hymavathi infavour of Durga Prasad Rao dated 13.8.1990.

Ex.B6:Registered sale deed executed by Rama Seethamma infavour of Durga Prasad Rao dated 10.08.1990.

Ex.B7:Registered sale deed executed by one Lavanya as the GPA holder of Rama Seetha infavour of Durga Prasad Rao dated 13.8.1990.

Ex.B8:Registered sale deed executed by B. Kamala infavour of Durga Prasad Rao dated 11.8.1990.

Ex.B9:Registered sale deed executed by Damayanthi infavour of Durga Prasad Rao dated 13.8.1990.

Ex.B10:Notarized Will executed by Durga Prasad Rao i.e., my father in my favour and 1st defendant (my mother) dated 9.7.1993.

Fair19O.S.No.12/2011

Ex.B11:Registered Will executed by Sri Lakshmi Devi (my mother) in my favour

dated 9.9.2015.

Ex.B12:Death Certificate of my father Durga Prasad Rao.

Ex.B13:Death Certificate of my mother namely Sri Lakshmi Devi (1st defendant).

Ex.B14:Office copy of the legal notice dated 28.07.2008.

Ex.B15:Office copy of the reply notice dated 6.8.2018.

Sd/- M. Pavan Kumar

Addl. Civil Judge(Sr. D.)(F.T.C.), Bapatla.

Fair1 A.S.No.11/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

(FTC) :: BAPATLA

Present: Sri M. Pavan Kumar,

Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division)(F.T.C.), Bapatla Tuesday, this the 5th day of May, 2026.

A.S.No.11/2018

Between:

1.Kotapati Nagarattamma, W/o Late Venkata Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 75 years, Cultivation, R/o Varagani Village, Pedanandipadu Mandal.

2.Kotapati Ankamma Chowdary, S/o Late Venkata Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 56 years, Cultivation, R/o Varagani Village, Pedanandipadu Mandal.

3.Kotapati Hari Babu, S/o Late Venkata Subba Rao, Hindu aged about 55 years, Cultivation, R/o Varagani Village, Pedanandipadu Mandal.

4.Kotapati Sivaramakrishna, S/o Late Venkata … Appellants Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 52 years, Cultivation,R/oVaraganiVillage, Pedanandipadu Mandal.

And

Katta Rajyalakshmi, W/o Sambaiah, Hindu, aged about 54 years, Cultivation, R/o Door No.4-194,

Varagani Village, Pedanandipadu Mandal. ...Respondent

On appeal Under Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C. preferred against the Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.241/2011, dated 18.01.2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla wherein the parties are:

Katta Rajyalakshmi …Plaintiffs.

And

1. Kotapati Nagarattamma

2. Kotapati Ankamma Chowdary

3. Kotapati Hari Babu

4. Kotapati Sivaramakrishna ...Defendants.

Fair2 A.S.No.11/2018

This appeal is coming on today for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Raghuram, Advocates for the Appellants/Defendants and Sri R. Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the Respondent / Plaintiff and upon hearing of arguments and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The unsuccessful defendants are the appellants in this appeal.

2.The defendants are aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla passed in O.S.No.241/2011 on 18.01.2018

whereby and where under, the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property; and for costs of the suit.

3.The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenient reference.

4.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

One Gadagottu Venkateswarlu @ Venkaiah S/o Lakshmaiah is the absolute owner of the paint schedule property. There is an old tiled house constructed at about 100 years back bearing Door No.4-194 in the plaint schedule mentioned property. The said tiled house is situated in 4th block of

Vargasni Gram Panchayat. Smt. Gadagottu Narasamma is house is situated in 4th block of Varagani Gram Panchayat. Smt. Gadagottu Narasamma is the wife of the said Venkateswarlu. The said Gadagottu Venkateswarlu and Narasamma

Fair3 A.S.No.11/2018 have no issues. The said G. Venkateswarlu inherited the plaint schedule property from his ancestors and he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the said house as of right to the exclusion of one and all till his death and duly paid property tax to the Gram Panchayat. He died intestate on 12.11.1991 leaving behind his wife Narasamma as his sole legal heir. The assessment number for the plaint schedule is 275 in the year 1957, it varies from time as 273, 606, 837, 876, 558 and now the present assessment number is 811. The plaintiff further submitted that subsequent to the death of G. Venkateswarlu, his wife

Narasamma became absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and since then she has been in lawful possession and enjoinment of the same. Her name was mutated in Panchayat records and she paid property tax to the Panchayat

Authorities. She died testate on 20.07.2011. The plaintiff is nephew’s daughter of Gadagottu Venkateswarlu. She used to reside along with Gadagottu

Venkateswarlu and Narasamma in the plaint schedule property and looked after the needs and comforts of the said Gadagottu Venkateswarlu and Narasamma during their life time. Out of love and affection towards plaintiff the said

Gadagottu Narasamma has executed a registered Will on 15.04.2004 vide

Doc.No.20/III2004 in sound and disposing state of mind out of free volition bequeathing the plaint schedule mentioned property in favour of plaintiff to the knowledge of one and all. The plaintiff got performed the funeral ceremonies of deceased Narasamma. She continued in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property and her name was mutated by the Panchayat Authorities in

Fair4 A.S.No.11/2018

Panchayat records. The defendants have neither title nor possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property at any point of time. The defendants have got an eye to grab the plaint schedule property and they tried level best to manipulate the panchayat records but failed in their attempt. Having came to know the illegal acts of the defendants, the plaintiff got issued registered notice to them on 15.09.2011. Since two days the defendants are proclaiming in the

Village that they would not allow the plaintiff to be in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land. Hence, the suit.

5.The defendant No.2 filed written statement denying the plaint averments and the defendants Nos.1, 3 and 4 have adopted the written statement filed by the defendant No.2 and submitted that originally the schedule mentioned property is the property of Gramakantam ov Varagani Village, Pedanandipadu

Mandal, guntur District. The property to an extent of 306 2/9 Sq.yards was occupied by one Kotapati Ankamma who is the father-in-law of 1st defendant and the grandfather of the defendants 2 to 4 long back. During his life time he constructed an old house and he had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same till his death. After demise of the said Ankamma, the husband of the 1st defendant and father of defendant 2 to 4 by name Kotapati

Venkata Subba Rao came into possession and enjoymnet of the plaint schedule property as per their family settlement till his death i.e., 23.02.1996 along with the defendants. After the demise of the said K. Venkata Subba Rao the defendants acquired the possession of the plaint schedule property and

Fair5 A.S.No.11/2018 enjoying the same peacefully till today. To prove the same, the Tahsildar,

Pedanandipadu Mandal also issued a certificate under L.Dis.No.215/2011-A, dt.09.09.2011 in favour of the defendants. He further submitted that the 1st defendant executed a gift deed, dated 19.11.2011 bearing Doc.No.5948/11 in favour of the 2nd defendant bequeathing the plaint schedule property to him and the second defendant accepted the same and has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. He further submitted that the said

Gadagottu Venkateswarlu is the non resident of Varagani Village and he is no way connected with the plaint schedule property. He is not the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and he was never in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same at any point of time. The said Gadagottu Venkateswarlu is an agricultural coolie and he used to come down to Varagani Village for seasonal works and he used to take shelter in the schedule mentioned property with the permission of the family members of the defendants. One Gadagottu

Narasamma is not the legally wedded wife of the said Gadagottu Venkateswarlu as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint. Originally the said Gadagottu Narasamma belongs to Velpuru Village, Atchampet Mandal, Guntur District and she is the legally wedded wife of one Ravuri Kasaiah, S/o Narasimhudu. The said

Gadagottu Venkateswarlu and Narasamma never lived as wife and husband at

Varagani Village at any point of time. Taking undue advantage and innocence of the defendants the plaintiff created false and fabricated documents to grab the plaint schedule property to get unlawful gain from the plaintiff. The documents

Fair6 A.S.No.11/2018 filed along with plaint are created and fabricated and invented for the purpose of filing of the suit. The suit is bad under law as the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit as she is not having any right over the alleged plaint schedule property. It is an utter falsehood to say that the plaintiff is residing in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff is never in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property at any point of time and hence the question of disturbing the possession of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff does not arise at all and it is only invented for the purpose of filing of the suit. There is no prima-facie case and balance of convenience in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands by suppressing the real facts to get orders from the court. The defendants have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Hence, no injunction can be granted against the defendants. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

6.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for the trial before the trial court.

1.Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of fling of the suit or not?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

3.To what relief.

7.To substantiate the contention of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 7 got examined and Exs.A1 to Ex.A28 got marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 got examined and Exs.B1 to Ex.B3 got marked.

Fair7 A.S.No.11/2018

8.On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, the learned trial Judge partly decreed the suit with costs by its judgment and decree dated 18.01.2018.

9.Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs as an appellants in this Appeal before this court, raised the following grounds for appeal:

1.The judgment and decree of the lower court is contrary to law and probabilities of the case.

2.The lower court should have dismissed the suit by holding that the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration. As defendants/appellants have specifically denied the plaintiff’s title over the suit property by filing the caveat long before filing fo the suit.

3.The lower court should have observed that plaintiffs have failed to prove Late G. Venkateswarlu was the owner of the suit property and then should have observed that Narasamma has no right to execute the alleged Will as mentioned in the plaint (Ex.A1).

4.The lower court should have observed that Ex.A1 document is not proved and Late Narasamma has no right or title to execute the alleged Will

dated 15.04.2014.

5.The lower court should have observed that Late Narasamma is not all the wife of G. Venkateswarlu and she has nothing to do with the suit property.

6.The lower court should have observed that originally one Kotapati

Ankamma the father-in-law of the 1st defendant was the owner of the suit property by accepting the Certificate given by the Tahsildar, dated 09.09.2011 (Ex.B2).

7.The observation of the lower court that Ex.B2 Certificate given by the Tahsildar is not with reference to the suit schedule property etc., is incorrect.

Fair8 A.S.No.11/2018

8.The lower court should have observed that the alleged tax receipt, water tax, electricity bills etc., are not with reference to the suit property.

9.The observation of the lower court that appellants have permitted

Late G. Venkateswarlu to stay in the property and hence plaintiff is also in possession of the property is not correct. It is for the plaintiff to establish before the plaintiff that she is in possession of the suit property as on date of filing of the suit. The defendants/appellants never stated the plaintiff is in permissive possession of the suit property. What appellants have stated in the written statement is Late G. Venkateswarlu stayed in suit property for some time with permission and he died. It is specifically pleaded that appellants alone are in possession of the suit property as on date of filing of suit property. It is specifically stated in the written statement the alleged Narasamma is not at all the wife of Late G. Venkateswarlu and observation that plaintiff is in permissive possession of the suit property as stated by the lower court in its judgment is absolutely incorrect and erroneous.

10.The boundaries recital in any document is binding on the parties to the transaction. So, the boundary recital in the Ex.A28 can not be taken into consideration to prove the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties. The lower court should have considered the fact that the 1st defendants has executed the gift deed dated 19.11.2011 in favour of 2nd defendant (DW2) clearly disclosed that the defendants alone are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

10.Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.

11.Having regard to the rival contentions raised by the parties and the grounds raised in the appeal, the following points would emerge for consideration:

Fair9 A.S.No.11/2018

1.Whether the decree and judgment of the trial court is sustainable in law.

2. To what relief.

12.POINT NO. 1:

The record of the trial court goes to show that originally the suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for bare permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The record further goes to show that after elaborate trial, the trial court decreed the suit with costs for the relief of permanent injunction. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the defendants on record approached this Hon’ble Court by way of this appeal.

Hence, the appeal.

In the case on hand, the record goes to show that the plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 and on her behalf, the P.W.2 to P.W.7 were examined out of which, the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6 were eschewed by the trial court.

The plaintiff to support her case got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A28 documents and the same were received into evidence on the side of plaintiff side witnesses.

Per contra, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3. The trial court also eschewed the evidence of D.W.4. Coming to the defendant side, the Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were received into evidence.

In the present case, the version of the plaintiff is that originally the plaint schedule property belongs to one Gadagottu Venkateswarlu and that he

Fair10 A.S.No.11/2018 situated a tiled house in the schedule property and that he died intestate on 12.11.1997 leaving behind his wife Narsamma as sole legal heir as the said

Narsamma and Venkateswarlu were not having any issues. The further version is that as the said Narsamma succeeded the estate of Venkateswarlu, she has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by paying requisite property taxes to the concerned authorities. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff being a nephew’s daughter of Venkateswarlu used to reside along with Venkateswarlu and Narsamma in the schedule property by looking after the need and comforts of the said couple during their life time and on that out of love and affection, the said Narsamma got executed a registered

Will on 15.4.2004 in a sound and disposing state of mind infavour of the plaintiff by bequeathing the plaint schedule properties. The further version is that the said Narsamma died testate on 20.7.2011 and thereafter as per the Will dated 15.4.2004, the plaintiff is continuing the possession of the schedule property and her name was mutated by the panchayat authorities in the panchayat records. The plaintiff contention is that the defendants have nothing to do with the schedule property proclaiming in the village that they would not allow the plaintiff to continue in the schedule property to enjoy the possession and thereby causing interference and as such, as the plaintiff unable to curtail the acts of the defendants, the plaintiff is inclined to file the suit for permanent injunction.

Per contra, the version of the defendants is that the plaintiff is never in possession and enjoinment of the schedule property at any point of time that the

Fair11 A.S.No.11/2018 plaintiff approached the Hon’ble Court with unclean hands by suppressing the material facts. The further version is that the said Narsamma is not the legally wedded wife of Venkateswarlu as alleged by the plaintiff, as such, the documents relied upon by the plaintiff were false and fabricated to grab the schedule property and added that infact, the defendants were in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property as the 1st defendant executed a gift deed infavour of the 2nd defendant by bequeathing the plaint schedule property and the same is accepted by the 2nd defendant, as such, the 2nd defendant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

After analysis of evidence and marshaling of facts what emerges clear is that this is a suit filed for permanent injunction. In the case on hand, the plaintiff is claiming the possession based on a registered Will got executed by one

Narsamma in her favour on 15.4.2004 vide Ex.A1. Per contra, the defendants on record are also claiming possession based on a registered gift deed dated 19.11.2011 vide Ex.B1. As already stated the suit is for bare injunction, there is no necessity to go depth into the title aspects pertaining to the documentary evidence more particularly regarding Ex.A1 and Ex.B1 except to verify the incidental title to the schedule property. Hence, it is immaterial in the present case to verify the link documents to Ex.A1 and Ex.B1 so also the proof of documents by the parties to prove their title by plaintiff for Ex.A1 and by defendants for Ex.B1. However, the record of the trial court is crystal clear that to prove the incidental title of the plaintiff, the plaintiff chosen to examine the

Fair12 A.S.No.11/2018 scribe of the Will as P.W.2 and P.W.3 to identify the signature of one of the attestor. Whereas coming to the defendants side except defendant No.1 to 3 none of the witnesses were examined to prove the incidental title to the schedule property though the defendants on record are claiming clear title over the schedule property. As already stated the present suit is for injunction apart from the incidental title, it is pertinent to see that whether the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and whether there is any interference from the defendants regarding the possession of the plaintiff over the schedule property. The testimony of the plaintiff side witnesses i.e., the plaintiff and her supporting witnesses P.W.2 to P.W.4 and

P.W.7 being the adjacent owners of the suit schedule property categorically deposed that plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Hence, the oral evidence is clear regarding the possession of the plaintiff over the schedule property. Coming to the documentary evidence, the version of the plaintiff is that originally the schedule property belongs to one

Venkateswarlu and after his death, the property was succeeded by his wife

Narsamma, who got executed a Will in the name of the plaintiff being the relative of her husband and as the said Narsamma have no issues. Thus, the version of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property is in exclusive possession since from the time of said Gadagottu Venkateswarlu and thereafter the possession continued to Narsamma and therefrom to the plaintiff. To prove the said continuous possession from Venkateswarlu to plaintiff, the plaintiff got

Fair13 A.S.No.11/2018 exhibited Ex.A5 to Ex.A8 which clinchingly proves the possession of the schedule property from the period of Venkateswarlu to the plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit. Here, the defendants raised a contention that the said

Narsamma is not the legally wedded wife of Venkateswarlu as they never resided as wife and husband at any point of time. If it is the case, then the burden is on the part of the defendants to prove that the Narsamma is not the wife of Venkateswarlu but she is the legally wedded wife of one Ravuri Kasaiah as contended by the defendants in their pleadings. For this, there is no relevant evidence to disprove that the Narsamma is not the legally wedded wife of

Venkateswarlu. Hence, the defendants have no legs to stand on this contention. Added to this, the D.W.1 categorically deposed that the said

Venkateswarlu was in permissive possession of the schedule property and the same has been granted by her father-in-law about 60 to 70 years back. This clearly goes to show that about 60 years back, the Venkateswarlu is in possession of the schedule property. Further the evidence of D.W.1 is also crystal clear that there is no document to show that the plaint schedule property came to her husband. It is also elicited and evident from the testimony of

D,.W.1 that the D.W.1 i.e., the 1st defendant is having house near by the plaint schedule property and it belongs to her husband. The D.W.1 also admitted that the plaint schedule property and her house i.e., near by the plaint schedule property were situated in the same survey number. The D.W.1 further admitted that the plaint schedule property is not in the name of her husband or her father-

Fair14 A.S.No.11/2018 in-law during her life time. This clearly goes to show that the D.W.1 have nothing to do with the plaint schedule property as it is not in the name of her husband or her father-in-law but she is having house near by the schedule property in the same survey number of the schedule property. The record is also crystal clear that the plaintiff before filing the suit, got issued a legal notice under Ex.A9 dated 15.9.2011 to all the defendants and the defendants did not issue any reply notice but subsequent to the issuance of legal notice by the plaintiff, a registered gift deed was executed by the 1st defendant in the name of 2nd defendant on 19.11.2011 clearly goes to show the after thought of the defendants to grab the schedule property as they are living near by the schedule property and clearly shows the interference of the defendants into the schedule property by the guise of the registered gift deed executed under Ex.B3/Ex.B1.

Thus, the defendants were agitating the title of the schedule property under the registered gift deed under Ex.B3/Ex.B1 without having any link document.

Hence, after agglomeration of evidence the testimony of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and

P.W.7 coupled with the documentary evidence relied upon by the plaintiff, clinchingly proves the case of the plaintiff that she is in possession of the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and that there is a clear interference from the defendants on record in to the possession of the plaintiff, as such, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction by restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the plaintiff.

Fair15 A.S.No.11/2018

Thus, in view of the discussion made supra, this appellate court is of the considered opinion that, the learned trial judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence in the proper perspective came to right conclusions, as such, the judgment and decree of the trial court is not liable to be interfered with.

Accordingly the POINT No.1 is answered.

13.POINT NO. 2 :

In view of the findings on Point No. 1, it is held on this point that the

Appeal fails and it is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed with costs, throughout, by confirming the common judgment and decree of the learned

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla passed in O.S.No.241/2011, dated

18.01.2018.

Typed to the dictation corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 5th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- M. Pavan Kumar

Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) (F.T.C.), Bapatla.

Appendix of Evidence No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by both parties.

Sd/- M. Pavan Kumar

Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) (F.T.C.), Bapatla.

Copy to:

The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bapatla.

Fair1 A.S.No.11/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

(FTC) :: BAPATLA

Present: Sri M. Pavan Kumar,

Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division)(F.T.C.), Bapatla Tuesday, this the 5th day of May, 2026.

A.S.No.11/2018

Between:

1.Kotapati Nagarattamma, W/o Late Venkata Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 75 years, Cultivation, R/o Varagani Village, Pedanandipadu Mandal.

2.Kotapati Ankamma Chowdary, S/o Late Venkata Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 56 years, Cultivation, R/o Varagani Village, Pedanandipadu Mandal.

3.Kotapati Hari Babu, S/o Late Venkata Subba Rao, Hindu aged about 55 years, Cultivation, R/o Varagani Village, Pedanandipadu Mandal.

4.Kotapati Sivaramakrishna, S/o Late Venkata … Appellants Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 52 years, Cultivation,R/oVaraganiVillage, Pedanandipadu Mandal.

And

Katta Rajyalakshmi, W/o Sambaiah, Hindu, aged about 54 years, Cultivation, R/o Door No.4-194,

Varagani Village, Pedanandipadu Mandal. ...Respondent

On appeal Under Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C. preferred against the Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.241/2011, dated 18.01.2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla wherein the parties are:

Katta Rajyalakshmi …Plaintiffs.

And

1. Kotapati Nagarattamma

2. Kotapati Ankamma Chowdary

3. Kotapati Hari Babu

4. Kotapati Sivaramakrishna ...Defendants.

Fair2 A.S.No.11/2018

This appeal is coming on today for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Raghuram, Advocates for the Appellants/Defendants and Sri R. Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the Respondent / Plaintiff and upon hearing of arguments and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The unsuccessful defendants are the appellants in this appeal.

2.The defendants are aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla passed in O.S.No.241/2011 on 18.01.2018

whereby and where under, the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property; and for costs of the suit.

3.The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenient reference.

4.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

One Gadagottu Venkateswarlu @ Venkaiah S/o Lakshmaiah is the absolute owner of the paint schedule property. There is an old tiled house constructed at about 100 years back bearing Door No.4-194 in the plaint schedule mentioned property. The said tiled house is situated in 4th block of

Vargasni Gram Panchayat. Smt. Gadagottu Narasamma is house is situated in 4th block of Varagani Gram Panchayat. Smt. Gadagottu Narasamma is the wife of the said Venkateswarlu. The said Gadagottu Venkateswarlu and Narasamma

Fair3 A.S.No.11/2018 have no issues. The said G. Venkateswarlu inherited the plaint schedule property from his ancestors and he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the said house as of right to the exclusion of one and all till his death and duly paid property tax to the Gram Panchayat. He died intestate on 12.11.1991 leaving behind his wife Narasamma as his sole legal heir. The assessment number for the plaint schedule is 275 in the year 1957, it varies from time as 273, 606, 837, 876, 558 and now the present assessment number is 811. The plaintiff further submitted that subsequent to the death of G. Venkateswarlu, his wife

Narasamma became absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and since then she has been in lawful possession and enjoinment of the same. Her name was mutated in Panchayat records and she paid property tax to the Panchayat

Authorities. She died testate on 20.07.2011. The plaintiff is nephew’s daughter of Gadagottu Venkateswarlu. She used to reside along with Gadagottu

Venkateswarlu and Narasamma in the plaint schedule property and looked after the needs and comforts of the said Gadagottu Venkateswarlu and Narasamma during their life time. Out of love and affection towards plaintiff the said

Gadagottu Narasamma has executed a registered Will on 15.04.2004 vide

Doc.No.20/III2004 in sound and disposing state of mind out of free volition bequeathing the plaint schedule mentioned property in favour of plaintiff to the knowledge of one and all. The plaintiff got performed the funeral ceremonies of deceased Narasamma. She continued in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property and her name was mutated by the Panchayat Authorities in

Fair4 A.S.No.11/2018

Panchayat records. The defendants have neither title nor possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property at any point of time. The defendants have got an eye to grab the plaint schedule property and they tried level best to manipulate the panchayat records but failed in their attempt. Having came to know the illegal acts of the defendants, the plaintiff got issued registered notice to them on 15.09.2011. Since two days the defendants are proclaiming in the

Village that they would not allow the plaintiff to be in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land. Hence, the suit.

5.The defendant No.2 filed written statement denying the plaint averments and the defendants Nos.1, 3 and 4 have adopted the written statement filed by the defendant No.2 and submitted that originally the schedule mentioned property is the property of Gramakantam ov Varagani Village, Pedanandipadu

Mandal, guntur District. The property to an extent of 306 2/9 Sq.yards was occupied by one Kotapati Ankamma who is the father-in-law of 1st defendant and the grandfather of the defendants 2 to 4 long back. During his life time he constructed an old house and he had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same till his death. After demise of the said Ankamma, the husband of the 1st defendant and father of defendant 2 to 4 by name Kotapati

Venkata Subba Rao came into possession and enjoymnet of the plaint schedule property as per their family settlement till his death i.e., 23.02.1996 along with the defendants. After the demise of the said K. Venkata Subba Rao the defendants acquired the possession of the plaint schedule property and

Fair5 A.S.No.11/2018 enjoying the same peacefully till today. To prove the same, the Tahsildar,

Pedanandipadu Mandal also issued a certificate under L.Dis.No.215/2011-A, dt.09.09.2011 in favour of the defendants. He further submitted that the 1st defendant executed a gift deed, dated 19.11.2011 bearing Doc.No.5948/11 in favour of the 2nd defendant bequeathing the plaint schedule property to him and the second defendant accepted the same and has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. He further submitted that the said

Gadagottu Venkateswarlu is the non resident of Varagani Village and he is no way connected with the plaint schedule property. He is not the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and he was never in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same at any point of time. The said Gadagottu Venkateswarlu is an agricultural coolie and he used to come down to Varagani Village for seasonal works and he used to take shelter in the schedule mentioned property with the permission of the family members of the defendants. One Gadagottu

Narasamma is not the legally wedded wife of the said Gadagottu Venkateswarlu as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint. Originally the said Gadagottu Narasamma belongs to Velpuru Village, Atchampet Mandal, Guntur District and she is the legally wedded wife of one Ravuri Kasaiah, S/o Narasimhudu. The said

Gadagottu Venkateswarlu and Narasamma never lived as wife and husband at

Varagani Village at any point of time. Taking undue advantage and innocence of the defendants the plaintiff created false and fabricated documents to grab the plaint schedule property to get unlawful gain from the plaintiff. The documents

Fair6 A.S.No.11/2018 filed along with plaint are created and fabricated and invented for the purpose of filing of the suit. The suit is bad under law as the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit as she is not having any right over the alleged plaint schedule property. It is an utter falsehood to say that the plaintiff is residing in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff is never in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property at any point of time and hence the question of disturbing the possession of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff does not arise at all and it is only invented for the purpose of filing of the suit. There is no prima-facie case and balance of convenience in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands by suppressing the real facts to get orders from the court. The defendants have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Hence, no injunction can be granted against the defendants. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

6.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for the trial before the trial court.

1.Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of fling of the suit or not?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

3.To what relief.

7.To substantiate the contention of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 7 got examined and Exs.A1 to Ex.A28 got marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 got examined and Exs.B1 to Ex.B3 got marked.

Fair7 A.S.No.11/2018

8.On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, the learned trial Judge partly decreed the suit with costs by its judgment and decree dated 18.01.2018.

9.Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs as an appellants in this Appeal before this court, raised the following grounds for appeal:

1.The judgment and decree of the lower court is contrary to law and probabilities of the case.

2.The lower court should have dismissed the suit by holding that the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration. As defendants/appellants have specifically denied the plaintiff’s title over the suit property by filing the caveat long before filing fo the suit.

3.The lower court should have observed that plaintiffs have failed to prove Late G. Venkateswarlu was the owner of the suit property and then should have observed that Narasamma has no right to execute the alleged Will as mentioned in the plaint (Ex.A1).

4.The lower court should have observed that Ex.A1 document is not proved and Late Narasamma has no right or title to execute the alleged Will

dated 15.04.2014.

5.The lower court should have observed that Late Narasamma is not all the wife of G. Venkateswarlu and she has nothing to do with the suit property.

6.The lower court should have observed that originally one Kotapati

Ankamma the father-in-law of the 1st defendant was the owner of the suit property by accepting the Certificate given by the Tahsildar, dated 09.09.2011 (Ex.B2).

7.The observation of the lower court that Ex.B2 Certificate given by the Tahsildar is not with reference to the suit schedule property etc., is incorrect.

Fair8 A.S.No.11/2018

8.The lower court should have observed that the alleged tax receipt, water tax, electricity bills etc., are not with reference to the suit property.

9.The observation of the lower court that appellants have permitted

Late G. Venkateswarlu to stay in the property and hence plaintiff is also in possession of the property is not correct. It is for the plaintiff to establish before the plaintiff that she is in possession of the suit property as on date of filing of the suit. The defendants/appellants never stated the plaintiff is in permissive possession of the suit property. What appellants have stated in the written statement is Late G. Venkateswarlu stayed in suit property for some time with permission and he died. It is specifically pleaded that appellants alone are in possession of the suit property as on date of filing of suit property. It is specifically stated in the written statement the alleged Narasamma is not at all the wife of Late G. Venkateswarlu and observation that plaintiff is in permissive possession of the suit property as stated by the lower court in its judgment is absolutely incorrect and erroneous.

10.The boundaries recital in any document is binding on the parties to the transaction. So, the boundary recital in the Ex.A28 can not be taken into consideration to prove the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties. The lower court should have considered the fact that the 1st defendants has executed the gift deed dated 19.11.2011 in favour of 2nd defendant (DW2) clearly disclosed that the defendants alone are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

10.Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.

11.Having regard to the rival contentions raised by the parties and the grounds raised in the appeal, the following points would emerge for consideration:

Fair9 A.S.No.11/2018

1.Whether the decree and judgment of the trial court is sustainable in law.

2. To what relief.

12.POINT NO. 1:

The record of the trial court goes to show that originally the suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for bare permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The record further goes to show that after elaborate trial, the trial court decreed the suit with costs for the relief of permanent injunction. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the defendants on record approached this Hon’ble Court by way of this appeal.

Hence, the appeal.

In the case on hand, the record goes to show that the plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 and on her behalf, the P.W.2 to P.W.7 were examined out of which, the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6 were eschewed by the trial court.

The plaintiff to support her case got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A28 documents and the same were received into evidence on the side of plaintiff side witnesses.

Per contra, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3. The trial court also eschewed the evidence of D.W.4. Coming to the defendant side, the Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were received into evidence.

In the present case, the version of the plaintiff is that originally the plaint schedule property belongs to one Gadagottu Venkateswarlu and that he

Fair10 A.S.No.11/2018 situated a tiled house in the schedule property and that he died intestate on 12.11.1997 leaving behind his wife Narsamma as sole legal heir as the said

Narsamma and Venkateswarlu were not having any issues. The further version is that as the said Narsamma succeeded the estate of Venkateswarlu, she has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by paying requisite property taxes to the concerned authorities. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff being a nephew’s daughter of Venkateswarlu used to reside along with Venkateswarlu and Narsamma in the schedule property by looking after the need and comforts of the said couple during their life time and on that out of love and affection, the said Narsamma got executed a registered

Will on 15.4.2004 in a sound and disposing state of mind infavour of the plaintiff by bequeathing the plaint schedule properties. The further version is that the said Narsamma died testate on 20.7.2011 and thereafter as per the Will dated 15.4.2004, the plaintiff is continuing the possession of the schedule property and her name was mutated by the panchayat authorities in the panchayat records. The plaintiff contention is that the defendants have nothing to do with the schedule property proclaiming in the village that they would not allow the plaintiff to continue in the schedule property to enjoy the possession and thereby causing interference and as such, as the plaintiff unable to curtail the acts of the defendants, the plaintiff is inclined to file the suit for permanent injunction.

Per contra, the version of the defendants is that the plaintiff is never in possession and enjoinment of the schedule property at any point of time that the

Fair11 A.S.No.11/2018 plaintiff approached the Hon’ble Court with unclean hands by suppressing the material facts. The further version is that the said Narsamma is not the legally wedded wife of Venkateswarlu as alleged by the plaintiff, as such, the documents relied upon by the plaintiff were false and fabricated to grab the schedule property and added that infact, the defendants were in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property as the 1st defendant executed a gift deed infavour of the 2nd defendant by bequeathing the plaint schedule property and the same is accepted by the 2nd defendant, as such, the 2nd defendant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

After analysis of evidence and marshaling of facts what emerges clear is that this is a suit filed for permanent injunction. In the case on hand, the plaintiff is claiming the possession based on a registered Will got executed by one

Narsamma in her favour on 15.4.2004 vide Ex.A1. Per contra, the defendants on record are also claiming possession based on a registered gift deed dated 19.11.2011 vide Ex.B1. As already stated the suit is for bare injunction, there is no necessity to go depth into the title aspects pertaining to the documentary evidence more particularly regarding Ex.A1 and Ex.B1 except to verify the incidental title to the schedule property. Hence, it is immaterial in the present case to verify the link documents to Ex.A1 and Ex.B1 so also the proof of documents by the parties to prove their title by plaintiff for Ex.A1 and by defendants for Ex.B1. However, the record of the trial court is crystal clear that to prove the incidental title of the plaintiff, the plaintiff chosen to examine the

Fair12 A.S.No.11/2018 scribe of the Will as P.W.2 and P.W.3 to identify the signature of one of the attestor. Whereas coming to the defendants side except defendant No.1 to 3 none of the witnesses were examined to prove the incidental title to the schedule property though the defendants on record are claiming clear title over the schedule property. As already stated the present suit is for injunction apart from the incidental title, it is pertinent to see that whether the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and whether there is any interference from the defendants regarding the possession of the plaintiff over the schedule property. The testimony of the plaintiff side witnesses i.e., the plaintiff and her supporting witnesses P.W.2 to P.W.4 and

P.W.7 being the adjacent owners of the suit schedule property categorically deposed that plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Hence, the oral evidence is clear regarding the possession of the plaintiff over the schedule property. Coming to the documentary evidence, the version of the plaintiff is that originally the schedule property belongs to one

Venkateswarlu and after his death, the property was succeeded by his wife

Narsamma, who got executed a Will in the name of the plaintiff being the relative of her husband and as the said Narsamma have no issues. Thus, the version of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property is in exclusive possession since from the time of said Gadagottu Venkateswarlu and thereafter the possession continued to Narsamma and therefrom to the plaintiff. To prove the said continuous possession from Venkateswarlu to plaintiff, the plaintiff got

Fair13 A.S.No.11/2018 exhibited Ex.A5 to Ex.A8 which clinchingly proves the possession of the schedule property from the period of Venkateswarlu to the plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit. Here, the defendants raised a contention that the said

Narsamma is not the legally wedded wife of Venkateswarlu as they never resided as wife and husband at any point of time. If it is the case, then the burden is on the part of the defendants to prove that the Narsamma is not the wife of Venkateswarlu but she is the legally wedded wife of one Ravuri Kasaiah as contended by the defendants in their pleadings. For this, there is no relevant evidence to disprove that the Narsamma is not the legally wedded wife of

Venkateswarlu. Hence, the defendants have no legs to stand on this contention. Added to this, the D.W.1 categorically deposed that the said

Venkateswarlu was in permissive possession of the schedule property and the same has been granted by her father-in-law about 60 to 70 years back. This clearly goes to show that about 60 years back, the Venkateswarlu is in possession of the schedule property. Further the evidence of D.W.1 is also crystal clear that there is no document to show that the plaint schedule property came to her husband. It is also elicited and evident from the testimony of

D,.W.1 that the D.W.1 i.e., the 1st defendant is having house near by the plaint schedule property and it belongs to her husband. The D.W.1 also admitted that the plaint schedule property and her house i.e., near by the plaint schedule property were situated in the same survey number. The D.W.1 further admitted that the plaint schedule property is not in the name of her husband or her father-

Fair14 A.S.No.11/2018 in-law during her life time. This clearly goes to show that the D.W.1 have nothing to do with the plaint schedule property as it is not in the name of her husband or her father-in-law but she is having house near by the schedule property in the same survey number of the schedule property. The record is also crystal clear that the plaintiff before filing the suit, got issued a legal notice under Ex.A9 dated 15.9.2011 to all the defendants and the defendants did not issue any reply notice but subsequent to the issuance of legal notice by the plaintiff, a registered gift deed was executed by the 1st defendant in the name of 2nd defendant on 19.11.2011 clearly goes to show the after thought of the defendants to grab the schedule property as they are living near by the schedule property and clearly shows the interference of the defendants into the schedule property by the guise of the registered gift deed executed under Ex.B3/Ex.B1.

Thus, the defendants were agitating the title of the schedule property under the registered gift deed under Ex.B3/Ex.B1 without having any link document.

Hence, after agglomeration of evidence the testimony of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and

P.W.7 coupled with the documentary evidence relied upon by the plaintiff, clinchingly proves the case of the plaintiff that she is in possession of the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and that there is a clear interference from the defendants on record in to the possession of the plaintiff, as such, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction by restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the plaintiff.

Fair15 A.S.No.11/2018

Thus, in view of the discussion made supra, this appellate court is of the considered opinion that, the learned trial judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence in the proper perspective came to right conclusions, as such, the judgment and decree of the trial court is not liable to be interfered with.

Accordingly the POINT No.1 is answered.

13.POINT NO. 2 :

In view of the findings on Point No. 1, it is held on this point that the

Appeal fails and it is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed with costs, throughout, by confirming the common judgment and decree of the learned

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla passed in O.S.No.241/2011, dated

18.01.2018.

Typed to the dictation corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 5th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- M. Pavan Kumar

Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) (F.T.C.), Bapatla.

Appendix of Evidence No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by both parties.

Sd/- M. Pavan Kumar

Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) (F.T.C.), Bapatla.

Copy to:

The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bapatla.

Fair1O.S.No.21/2021

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

(FTC): BAPATLA

Present: Sri M. PAVAN KUMAR,

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) (F.T.C.), Bapatla

Thursday, this the 7th day of May, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT No.21 of 2021

Between:-

1. Guthikonda Rajesh, S/o Krishna Murthy, aged about 40 years, R/o Appikatla Village, Bapatla Mandal.

2. Muppala Ravindra Babu S/o Kotaiah, aged about 58 years, R/o Appikatla Village, Bapatla Mandal.… Plaintiffs.

AND

Vattikuti Venkata Ramanaidu @ Venkata Ramana Naidu, S/o Chowdaramma, aged about 52 years, R/o Plot 201, Bommarillu Apartment, Vishnavi Nagar, Ponnur Town and Mandal, Guntur District.… Defendant.

This suit has came before me on today for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Leelaw Krishna, Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs and of Sri Ch. Nagaraju and Sri I. Bala Krishna, Learned Counsels for defendant and on hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs a) to pass a decree infavour of plaintiffs against the defendant for specific performance of sale agreement,

dated 9.1.2020 by directing the defendant to execute regular sale deed

concerning to the plaint schedule property in terms of sale agreements dated 09.01.2020 and in case of failure by the defendant it may be get it done through process of law, b) for costs of the suit. (alternatively) i) to pass a

Fair2O.S.No.21/2021 decree infavour of plaintiffs for Rs.25,00,000/- with subsequent interest at 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization; ii) to declare that the suit property is impressed with charge for the above amount and iii) for costs of the suit.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that:

a)The defendant approached plaintiffs on 9.1.2020 and offered to sell the property of his own covered by registered gift deed, bearing No.2087/2011 of

SRO for consideration of Rs.27,00,000/-. The plaintiffs agreed to purchase the same and paid Rs.25,00,000/- towards advance from out of total sale consideration of Rs.27,00,000/-. In that connection, the defendant execute sale agreement infavour of plaintiff pertaining to plaint schedule property on 9.01.2020. As per the recitals of sale agreement, the plaintiffs shall pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- within 7 months from the date of execution of sale agreement dated 9.1.2020, failing which the plaintiffs are liable to pay the same along with interest at 24% p.a. on the aforesaid balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for the delayed period thereafter. The defendant is agreed to execute regular registered sale deed in respect of plaint schedule property at the expense of plaintiffs incurred towards stamp duty and registration either infavour of plaintiff or their nominees after receipt of full consideration as stated above. It was recited in the sale agreements, dated 9.1.2020 that the defendant got title over the 2087/2011 of SRO, Ponnur from

Vattikuti Lakshmi.

Fair3O.S.No.21/2021

b)The plaintiffs further submitted that they have approached the defendant several times by showing their ready and willingness with the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- with a stipulated period of 7 months including the expenses incurred for the registration in order to get the schedule properly register in their favour. But the defendant postponed the performing the contract on his part under aforesaid sale agreement dated 9.1.2020 on lame reasons for which the reasons best known to him. Finally, the plaintiffs got issued legal notice dated 8.1.2021 to the defendant calling upon him to execute regular registered sale deed concerning to the suit schedule property in terms of sale agreement dated 9.1.2020 by showing their ready and willingness to get the property registered in their favour by paying balance sale consideration of rs.2,00,000/-. The defendant received the said notice and got issued reply registered notice, which was acknowledged by the plaintiffs on 25.1.2021. The defendant set up false plea of refunding part of advance amount to a tune of rs.10,00,000/- dated 16.10.2020 from out of advance amount to the plaintiffs in his reply notice with a false aim of over come the terms of sale agreement, dated 9.1.2020. All the allegation of the reply notice are false and denied by the plaintiffs for want of proof and relevancy and hence, the same is not binding on the plaintiffs.

c)The plaintiffs learnt that the defendant is trying to sell the suit schedule property for higher rates and in that connection, the defendant set up false plea of discharge of part of advance amount to the plaintiffs in order to overcome the terms of aforesaid sale agreement and to gain wrongful profits.

Fair4O.S.No.21/2021

d)The plaintiffs further submitted that in the said circumstance, having no other go, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking a relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 9.1.2020 by directing the defendant to execute regular registered sale deed in terms of the sale agreement, dated 9.1.2020 executed by defendant infavour of plaintiffs concerning to the suit schedule property and in case default by the defendant to get it done through process of law by the Hon’ble Court at the expenses of plaintiffs or in the alternative directing the defendant to repay the earnest amount of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of its receipt on 9.1.2020 till its realization.

Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant filed the written statement denying all the averments of the plaint. The sum and substance of the written statement goes to show that it is true that the defendant sold away schedule property to plaintiffs at lump sum amount of Rs.27,00,000/- on 9.1.2020 under a contract of sale and the plaintiffs also paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on the same day towards advance at the time of execution fo contract of sale and the balance of sale consideration of rs.2,00,000/- should be paid within 7 months to the defendant and that in case of failure, the plaintiffs have to pay the same within the stipulated time, the plaintiffs are liable to pay the balance amount remind as on date with an interest @ 24% p.a. The defendant further submitted that the reasons best known to the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs approached the defendant and requested the defendant that they have in intention to cancel the agreement of sale and return the advance amount to them. Even though

Fair5O.S.No.21/2021 the plaintiffs failed to follow the terms and conditions of the sale agreement, the defendant have a soft corner upon plaintiffs and as per plaintiffs request, the defendant paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on 16.10.2020 out of advance amount of Rs.25,00,000/- to the 1st plaintiff in the presence of Guttikonda

Krishna Murthy, who is no other than the father of 1st plaintiff and Kurra

HariBabu, R/o Appikatla and defendant also promised before plaintiffs and the said elders that the defendant should pay the balance advance of

Rs.15,00,000/- within 6 months i.e., on 10.04.2021. The defendant further submitted that the plaintiffs suppressed the real facts and got filed the suit

before this Hon’ble Court for wrongful gain and also harassed the defendant

with a malafide intention. The defendant requested sought time for return off the balance advance amount. But the plaintiffs not consider his request and got issued registered notice through his Advocate with false allegations and suppressing the real facts. The defendant got issued fit reply to the plaintiffs counsel on 25.01.2021. At present, the defendant is ready and willing to pay the balance of advance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- at any point of time. The plaintiffs came to the court with unclean hands. There are no grounds whatsoever to allow the plaint. Hence, the defendant prays for dismissal of the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the learned predecessor settled the following issues for trial.

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for seeking the execution of registered sale deed from the defendant basing on the agreement of sale dated 09.01.2020.

Fair6O.S.No.21/2021 2Whether the time is essential of contract of sale.

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of earnest amount with interest from the defendant.

4.To what relief.

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, the P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. Coming to the defendant side, the D.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for defendant.

7.In reference to the Issue Nos.1 to 3:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for seeking the execution of

registered sale deed from the defendant basing on the

agreement of sale dated 09.01.2020.

2. Whether the time is essential of contract of sale.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of earnest amount with interest from the defendant.

As the issue Nos.1 to 3 were inter-related, they were clubbed together for better appreciation of evidence.

In the case on hand, the plaintiff No.2 examined as P.W.1 and the plaintiff No.1 examined as P.W.2. Both of them categorically deposed that, the defendant approached them and offered to sell his property for valid consideration of Rs.27,00,000/- and on that they agreed to purchase the same so also gave advance consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- and thereby the defendant executed an agreement of sale in their favour pertaining to suit schedule property on 9.1.2020 and agreed to receive the balance

Fair7O.S.No.21/2021 consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- within seven months from the date of execution of agreement of sale dated 9.1.2020 failing which, they are liable to pay the balance amount with interest @ 24% p.a. They also clarified in their evidence that the approached the defendant several times by showing their ready and willingness in payment of balance consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- within the stipulated period but the defendant keep postponing the same on some pretext or other. They further testified that they issued a legal notice on 8.1.2021 to the defendant calling upon to execute a regular registered sale deed pertaining to the suit schedule property in terms of agreement of sale dated 9.1.2020 but the defendant even after receiving the said notice, did not came forward for execution of sale deed but the defendant by way of reply notice set up a new plea with false allegations that the defendant refunded the advance consideration to a tune of Rs.10,00,000/- on 16.10.2020. They further testified that they came to know that defendant with this false allegations trying to sell away the suit schedule property for higher rates under the guise of discharge of part of advance amount to avoid the prior agreement of sale executed with them. The version of the plaintiffs on record is that finding no other go, they got filed the present suit seeking for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale. To support the case of the plaintiffs, the P.W.1 got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and the same were received into evidence. The cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 goes to show that the P.W.1 and

P.W.2 jointly paid an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- towards advance consideration out of sale consideration of Rs.27,00,000/-. Both of them clearly denied about

Fair8O.S.No.21/2021 the cancellation of agreement of sale under Ex.A1 as the defendant paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to them in the presence of one Krishna Murthy and one Kurra Hari Babu.

The P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the attestors to the suit document under

Ex.A1. Both of them categorically deposed that the defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs i.e., P.W.1 and P.W.2 for consideration of Rs.27,00,000/- and out of the said sale consideration, the

P.W.1 and P.W.2 paid an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- towards advance sale consideration and on that the defendant came forward to execute an agreement of sale infavour of plaintiffs i.e., P.W.1 and P.W.2 on 9.1.2020 and the defendant agreed to receive the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- within the stipulated period i.e., within a period of seven months from the agreement of sale. Both of them clearly testified that they stood as attesting witness to the suit document and added that one Nune Srinivasa Rao scribed the document under Ex.A1. During the cross-examination of P.W.3 and P.W.4 nothing was elicited infavour of the defendant.

Per contra, the defendant himself examined as D.W.1. His evidence in chief is in tune with the averments of the written statement. He testified in his evidence that he sold away the schedule property to the plaintiffs i.e., P.W.1 and P.W.2 jointly for consideration of Rs.27,00,000/- under an agreement of sale dated 9.1.2020 and also agreed that he received an advance consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- from P.W.1 and P.W.2 towards sale consideration and agreed to receive the balance consideration of

Fair9O.S.No.21/2021

Rs.2,00,000/- within a period of 7 months from the date of agreement of sale, failing which with interest @ 24% p.a. The D.W.1 further testified that the plaintiffs i.e., P.W.1 and P.W.2 intended for cancellation of sale agreement and on that he paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on 16.10.2020 out of the advance amount of Rs.25,00,000/- to the 1st plaintiff in the presence of his father and one Kurra Hari Babu witnessed the same and added that he also promised to the plaintiffs i.e., P.W.1 and P.W.2 before elders that he will pay the balance of advance consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- within 6 months i.e., on or before 10.4.2021. The D.W.1 also testified that the plaintiffs suppressed the material facts and got filed the present suit for wrongful gain and added that at present, he is ready to pay the balance of advance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- at any point of time. During his cross-examination, it was elicited that he did not file any documentary proof to show that he had paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on 16.10.2020 to the plaintiffs and further admitted that there is no such endorsement on the agreement of sale vide Ex.A1 to show that he had return the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- out of the advance sale consideration.

After analysis of evidence and marshaling of facts what emerges clear is that there is no dispute in between the plaintiffs and the defendant about the execution of agreement of sale vide Ex.A1. The record is crystal clear that the defendant received an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- towards advance consideration out of sale consideration of Rs.27,00,000/-. The plaintiffs got filed the present suit for execution of regular registered sale deed by the defendant in their favour pertaining to plaint schedule property after receiving

Fair10O.S.No.21/2021 the balance consideration of rs.2,00,000/-. Per contra, the version of the defendant is that the plaintiffs themselves requested for cancellation of the agreement under Ex.A1 and on that the defendant agreed and had paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- out of the advance consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- and the defendant is ready to return the balance advance consideration of

Rs.15,00,000/- and added that the plaintiffs even after receiving the return of

Rs.10,00,000/-, suppressed the same and file the present suit with unclean hands for wrongful gain. As the defendant is claiming that out of cancellation of the agreement, he had return the advance consideration in part i.e., Rs.10,00,000/-. Hence, it is for the defendant to discharge the plea of cancellation of the agreement in the first instance as he clearly admitted the execution of agreement earlier infavour of the plaintiffs under Ex.A1. For this, there is no scrap of document to show that there was an arrangement in between the parties for cancellation of the agreement. Added to this, the defendant also clearly failed to establish that he had paid an amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- to the plaintiffs as a return of part of advance sale consideration amount. Though the defendant contended that the said payment of Rs.10,00,000/- was made in the presence of some third parties i.e., one Krishna Murthy (father of plaintiff No.1) and Kurra Hari Babu, the defendant did not chosen to examine any of them to support his testimony. At the stage of arguments, the counsel for defendant submitted that the father of the plaintiff No.1 was expired as such, it is not possible to examine him. For this, no record was placed regarding the death certificate of said Krishna

Fair11O.S.No.21/2021

Murthy to support the contention of the defendant at the time of arguments.

There is no reasonable explanation for non-examination of Kurra Hari Babu from defendant side though his name was mentioned by the defendant during his cross-examination as a presenting witness to the alleged payment of

Rs.10,00,000/- by the defendant to the plaintiffs. Added to this, it was elicited during the cross-examination of D.W.1 that there is no endorsement on the back side of the agreement of sale vide Ex.A1 with regard to the return of

Rs.10,00,000/- by the defendant to the plaintiffs as an act of cancellation of the earlier agreement under Ex.A1. In the absence of iota of evidence from the defendant for return of Rs.10,00,000/-, the contention of defendant cannot be countenanced. Thus, in view of the discussion made supra, after considering the oral testimony of P.W.1 to P.W.4 coupled with the documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and upon the admission made by the defendant with regard to the execution of Ex.A1 so also in receiving an advance consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- from the plaintiffs, it is crystal clear that the defendant executed an agreement of sale on 9.1.2020 for sale of plaint schedule property for valid consideration of Rs.27,00,000/- infavour of the plaintiffs on record and on that the defendant already received Rs.25,00,000/- towards advance consideration. As the said agreement of sale under Ex.A1 is proved being true and valid, it is binding on the defendant to execute a regular registered sale deed infavour of the plaintiffs on record after receiving the balance sale consideration amount. Accordingly, the issue Nos. 1 to 3 were answered.

Fair12O.S.No.21/2021

8.Issue No .4:

To what relief?

In view of the findings under Issue Nos.1 to 3, the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for the main relief as prayed for.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration from the plaintiffs and further directed to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 9.01.2020 at the cost of the plaintiffs, within three(3) months from the date of the judgment, failing which, the plaintiffs are at liberty to get the registered sale deed through due process of law.

Typed to dictation to the Stenographer Grade-III corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 7th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- M. Pavan Kumar

Addl. Civil Judge(Senior Division) (F.T.C.), Bapatla.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For Plaintiffs: For Defendant:

P.W.1 : M. Ravindra BabuD.W.1 : V. Venkata Rama Naidu P.W.2 : G. Rajesh @ Venkata Ramana Naidu P.W.3 : G. Sreedhar P.W.4 : T. Raghavulu

Fair13O.S.No.21/2021

Documents marked

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1 : Sale agreement dated 9.1.2020 executed by defendant infavour of P.W.1.

Ex.A2 : Office copy of the registered notice dated 8.1.2021 issued to the defendant.

Ex.A3 : Acknowledgment.

Ex.A4 : Reply notice, dated 25.1.2021.

Ex.A5 : Registered Gift deed Doct.No.2087/2011, dated 4.8.2011.

For Defendant:

- Nil -

Sd/- M. Pavan Kumar

Addl. Civil Judge(Senior Division) (F.T.C.), Bapatla.

Fair1 A.S.No.13/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

(FTC) :: BAPATLA

Present: Sri M. Pavan Kumar,

Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division)(F.T.C.), Bapatla Thursday, this the 7th day of May, 2026.

A.S.No.13/2018

Between:

1. Yepuri Sambaiah (DIED)

2. Yepuri Rattamma, W/o.Late Sambaiah, Hindu, Aged 68 years, Housewife, R/o.Kattivaripalem, H/o.Chandole Village, Pittalavanipalem Mandal, Guntur District.

3. Yepuri Samuel, S/o.Late Sambaiah, Hindu, Aged 50 years, Coolie works, R/o.Kattivaripalem, H/o.Chandole Village, Pittalavanipalem Mandal, Guntur District.…Appellants/Plaintiffs.

And

1. Yaram Yesu (DIED)

2. Yaram Krupa Rao, S/o.Yesu, Aged 25 years, Christian, R/o.Yaramvaripalem, P.V.Palem Mandal, Guntur District.

3. Nakka Venkateswarlu, S/o.Gudaraiah, Aged 65 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o.Bathulavaripalem, P.V.Palem Mandal, Guntur District.

4. Nakka Gudaraiah, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Aged 40 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o.Bathulavaripalem, P.V.Palem Mandal, Guntur District.

5. Nakka Raju (DIED)

6. Nakka Bhavani, W/o Raju, aged about 30 years, Hindu, R/o Bathulavaripalem, Karlapalem Mandal, Guntur District.

7. Nakka Sai, D/o Raju, Hindu, aged about 5 years, represented by mother Nakka Bhavani, W/o Raju, R/o Bathulavaripalem, Karlapalem Mandal, Guntur District.

8. Nakka Nani, D/o Raju, Hindu, aged about 3 years, represented by mother Nakka Bhavani, W/o Raju, R/o Bathulavaripalem, Karlapalem Mandal, Guntur District.

(The respondent Nos. 6 to 8 were added as Lrs. of deceased

5 th respondent as per orders in I.A.No.1059/2018, dated 15.2.2023)

...Respondents.

Fair2 A.S.No.13/2018

On appeal Under Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C. preferred against the Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.275/2009, dated 28.12.2017 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla wherein the parties are:

1. Yepuri Sambaiah (DIED)

2. Yepuri Rattamma

3. Yepuri Samuel …Plaintiffs.

And

1. Yaram Yesu (DIED)

2. Yaram Krupa Rao

3. Nakka Venkateswarlu

4. Nakka Gudaraiah

5. Nakka Naga Raju...Defendants.

This appeal is coming on today for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Seshu Kumar & T. Vijaya Kumar, Advocates for the Appellants/Plaintiffs and Sri Sk.Z. Basha, Sri K. Ravi and Sk. Mansoor, Advocates for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 6 to 8 and the Appellant No.1 and respondent Nos.1 and 5 were died and upon hearing of arguments and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The unsuccessful Plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal.

2.The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla passed in O.S.No.275/2009 on 28.12.2017

whereby and where under, the suit filed by the plaintiffs to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property; and for costs of the suit.

Fair3 A.S.No.13/2018

3.The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenient reference.

4.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The 1st plaintiff filed OS.No.31/2000 on the file of Principal Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Bapatla for declaration of his title and for consequential

possession of the suit schedule property and other properties against the 1 st defendant and another by name Yaram Ratnam. The said suit was decreed on 13-12-2012 partly regarding the suit schedule property and dismissed the relief regarding the other property. The defendants preferred an appeal in

AS.No.35/02 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bapatla and the

said appeal was dismissed on 28-01-2008. The defendants have not filed any second appeal, hence the decree and Judgment in OS.No.31/2000,

dated 13-2- 2002 became final. The plaintiff filed EP.No.102/08 in

OS.No.31/2000 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Bapatla for delivery

of the suit schedule property and the Court Ameena delivered the suit schedule property without any obstruction from any body including the 1st defendant on 8-12-2008. Since then the 1 st plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The 1 st defendant who has grouse against the plaintiffs is proclaiming in the Village that he will cut and take away the crop forcibly and manhandle the plaintiffs if he obstruct him. Hence, the suit.

5.The defendant No.1 filed written statement denying the plaint averments and submitted that the Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Bapatla passed a decree

Fair4 A.S.No.13/2018 in favour of the plaintiff in OS.No.31/2000 to an extent of Ac.0-35 cents in

S.No.211. The decree does not disclose in what boundaries the property is situated so there is an ambiguity in the decree itself. The plaintiff did not file any petition for clarification or amendment of the decree. The above said Ac.0-35 cents of land is on the southern side in S.No.202/2, the boundaries of Ac.0-35 cents of land in S.No.211 are East: Bathula Peda Veeraswamy’s land, after his demise his sons Adiseshu, Narayana, Mohana Rao and Bushi are cultivating the land. South: Timmaraju Irrigation Channel, West: Bathula Ramaiah, after his demise, his sons Subba Rao, Sivaiah, Rattiah are cultivating the land. Northern side S.No.202/2 which belongs to 1st defendant but not S.No.201/35. The plaintiffs are claiming the land of the defendants. The said Ac.0-35 cents of land in S.No.211 has been cultivating by Bathula Adiseshu. Instead of filing the suit against Bathula Adiseshu, the plaintiffs has been claiming this defendant property by mentioning wrong boundaries. The boundaries of the suit schedule is not correct. The Court Amina never delivered the possession of the suit land.

The Court Amin did not serve any notice to this defendant or another J.Dr in

OS.No.31/2000 before delivery of the said land. The suit schedule boundaries

are not in S.No.211 but it is the part and parcel of S.No.201/35 and 202/2. The decree passed by the Court has created confusion ,which leads to create further litigation. The plaintiff is resident of Chandole Village and as such he was never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

Fair5 A.S.No.13/2018

6.The defendants 2 to 5 adopted the written statement filed by the 1 st defendant. The defendant No.2 filed additional written statement contending that the defendant No.1 died intestate leaving behind his wife by name Yaram

Avamma and sons by name Yaram Vasantha Rao and this defendant. They are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule after the death of 1st defendant. So non-joinder of his wife and another son in the suit is not maintainable as per law. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

7.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for the trial before the trial court.

1. Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the paint schedule property by the date of filing of the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

3.To what relief.

8.To substantiate the contention of the plaintiffs, the P.Ws. 1 and 2 got examined and Exs.A1 to A3 got marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 got examined and Exs.B1 to B11 got marked. The Advocate Commissioner was examined as D.W.3 and Ex.X1 got marked through him.

9.On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit without costs by its judgment and decree dated 28.12.2017.

Fair6 A.S.No.13/2018

10.Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs as an appellants in this Appeal before this court, raised the following grounds for appeal:

1.The trial court’s decree and judgment is contrary to law, fact, piece of evidence and probability of the case.

2.The trial court erred in brushing aside the evidential value of Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 simply by comparing the northern boundary of the present plaint schedule with earlier suit proceeding schedule under O.S.No.31/2000 on the file of trial court which is an extent of Ac.1.08 cents but not considering the boundaries of the present plaint schedule which is to an extent of Ac.0.35 cents.

3.The trial court erred in not observing that dismissal of suit for injunction gives scope to the defendants to dispossess the plaintiffs/appellants which will make weaking the decree in O.S.No.31/2000 on the file of Principal

Junior Civil Judge Court and its entire proceedings upto delivery of possession.

4.The trial court erred in not appreciating the page No.2 of the

Ameena report which contains the delivery receipt of the P.W.1 as per decree passed O.S.No.31/2000 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court,

Bapatla.

5.The trial court erred in discussing the error in the warrant but ratified in the Ameen Report at page No.2 of Delivery Receipt.

11.As there is no representation from the appellants and respondents, even after exhausting the conditional orders for submitting arguments, the arguments may be treated as heard as the matter is pertaining to the year 2018 being an identified case as it is pre-2022 cases targeted for disposal by way of circulars of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Fair7 A.S.No.13/2018

12.Having regard to the rival contentions raised by the parties and the grounds raised in the appeal, the following points would emerge for consideration:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for.

2.Whether the decree and judgment of the lower court is sustainable in law.

3. To what relief.

13.POINT NOs.1 and 2:

In the case on hand, the record of the trial court goes to show that originally the suit was filed by the plaintiff No.1 against the defendants and on the death of the 1st plaintiff, his Lrs. were brought on record as plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and contested the same. The trial court after elaborate trial, dismissed the suit without costs and aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the plaintiffs on record approached this Hon’ble Court by way of this appeal. Hence, the appeal.

The record further goes to show that during the course of trial, the 1st plaintiff examined as P.W.1 and on his behalf the P.W.2 was examined. To support the case of the plaintiffs, the Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were exhibited and marked on the side of plaintiffs side witnesses. Per contra, the 2nd defendant examined as D.W.1 and on his behalf, the D.W.2 was examined and on behalf of the defendants, the Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 were marked. The record is also clear that the

Fair8 A.S.No.13/2018 learned Advocate Commissioner is examined as D.W.3 and through him Ex.X1 was received into evidence.

The version of the plaintiffs is that the 1st plaintiff filed O.S.No.31/2000

before the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Bapatla for declaration of title and

for recovery of possession against the 1st defendant and another by name

Yaram Ratnam and the said suit was decreed in part on 30.12.2012 regarding the suit schedule property and on that the defendants therein preferred an appeal in A.S.No.35/2002 before the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Bapatla and the said appeal was dismissed on contest on 28.1.2008 and as no second appeal was preferred by the defendants in O.s.No.31/2000, the judgment and decree in O.S.No.31/2000 dated 13.2.2002 became final. The further version is that the plaintiff filed an E.P.102/2008 in O.S.No.31/2000 before the Prl. Junior

Civil Judge, Bapatla for delivery of possession of schedule property and on that

the property was delivered by court ameena and the 1st plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The contention of the plaintiffs is that the 1st defendant bore grudge against the plaintiffs and proclaiming in the village that he will obstruct the plaintiff in enjoying the possession of the schedule property, as such, the plaintiff is inclined to file the present suit. Per contra, the version of the defendants is that the court Ameena never delivered the possession of suit schedule property and the boundaries of the suit schedule property is not correct with that of the delivery warrant and

Fair9 A.S.No.13/2018 added that the plaintiff is a resident of Chandole village, as such he was never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

After analysis of evidence and marshaling of facts what emerges clear is that the present suit is filed for bare injunction against the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. In the case on hand, the plaintiffs are claiming that as per the judgment and decree in O.S.No.31/2000 and as per E.P.102/2008, the court

Ameen delivered the schedule property and since then, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. To support his contention, the plaintiff got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. Per contra, the defendants are contending that the plaintiff have nothing to do with the schedule property as the boundaries are under delivery warrant were mismatched with the present plaint schedule property and the court Ameena never delivered the schedule property to the plaintiffs. For this, when perused the boundaries of the plaint schedule property and when compared with the boundaries in the delivery receipt and delivery warrant under Ex.A2 and Ex.A3, there is a dispute with regard to the northern boundary. This creates a doubt about the delivery of property is not same to the present schedule property. Added to this, the record is crystal clear that the court Ameena did not measure the plaint schedule property due to the presence of crop and did not identify the property before handing over the possession to the plaintiff. Admittedly, the case on hand, there is a dispute regarding the northern boundary and to that affect, the P.W.1 in his cross-

Fair10 A.S.No.13/2018 examination categorically deposed that he did not mention in the plaint schedule that the northern boundary is the land of the 1st defendant. Further more, the

P.W.1 also admitted that his property is on the northern side of the schedule property and further deposed that on the northern side of the land, there is a drainage, but whereas the plaint schedule shows that there is a land of defendant No.1. The P.W.1 also admitted that the western boundary is wrongly mentioned. Thus, there is no clarity to the plaintiffs on record whether the schedule property is delivered through Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 or some other property was delivered through paper delivery. The plaintiffs solely depend upon the

Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 i.e., delivery receipt and delivery warrant and no other scrap of document was placed before the trial court to convince the court that the plaintiffs on record were in possession of the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and that there is a disturbance or interference from the defendants on record in enjoying the possession of the schedule property by the plaintiffs. Hence, in the case on hand, as the plaintiffs utterly failed to prove their possession over the schedule property, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim the relief of permanent injunction.

Thus, in view of the discussion made supra, this appellate court is of the considered opinion that, the learned trial judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence in the proper perspective came to right conclusions, as such, the judgment and decree of the trial court is not liable to be interfered with.

Accordingly the POINT Nos.1 and 2 were answered.

Fair11 A.S.No.13/2018

14.POINT NO. 3 :

In view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 and 2, it is held on this point that the Appeal fails and it is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed with costs, throughout, by confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Principal

Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla passed in O.S.No.275/2009, dated 28.12.2017.

Typed to the dictation corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 7th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- M. Pavan Kumar

Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) (F.T.C.), Bapatla.

Appendix of Evidence No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by both parties.

Sd/- M. Pavan Kumar

Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) (F.T.C.), Bapatla.

Copy to:

The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bapatla.