Ms. M Prameela Rani

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TUNI

PRESENT:KUM.M.PRAMEELA RANI,PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Wednesday, this the 25th day of April, 2018

Original Suit No.248/2009

Between:

1. Mamidi Atchiyamma, W/o Late Tatamma, Hindu, Housewife, aged 58 years, resident of K.O.Mallavaram Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District.

2. Nallala Markendeyulu, S/o Bhumulu, Weaver, aged 57 years, resident of K.O.Mallavaram Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District. (The 1st plaintiff is being unsound mind represented by her brother as next friend amended as per orders dated 15-11-2017 in I.A.No.807/2017)

..Plaintiffs

And

Nallala Chellayya, S/o Bhumulu, Weaver, aged 57 years, resident of K.O.Mallavaram Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District.

...Defendant

This suit is coming on 12-04-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Krishna Sekhar, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Sri B.V.V.Ramana, Advocate for Defendant and the matter having stood for over consideration till today this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed for Permanent Injunction requesting this court to restrain the defendant and his henchmen from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the 1st plaintiff in any manner whatsoever and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the Plaint are :

The 1st plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property i.e.Ac.2.00 cents of vacant land (Survey number not mentioned in the plaint schedule) situated in K.O.Mallavaram Village of Tuni Mandal. It is further submitted that, the 1st plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 30 years. It is further submitted that, the 1st plaintiff raised a thatched house in the suit schedule property and she used to reside in the said house along with her family members. It is further submitted that, in order to construct RCC slabbed house in the suit schedule property the 1st plaintiff got removed the thatched house about two years ago. It is further submitted that, :2:

the 1st plaintiff obtained a possessory certificate dated 30-03-2008 for the suit schedule property from the Tahsildar, Tuni inorder to obtain loan from Housing

Board and the said possessory certificate clearly proves that, the 1st plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

It is further submitted that, the defendant is no way concerned with the suit schedule property and he has got no right whatsoever in the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that, the defendant is having a house property towards west of the suit schedule property and since two weeks he is making hectic efforts to trespass and occupy the suit schedule property highhandedly and illegally as he is a highly influential person and has got no respect towards law. It is further submitted that, the neighbours of the suit schedule property and the 1st plaintiff resisted the highhanded act of the defendant and his men.

It is further submitted that, on 30-08-2009 the defendant along with his henchmen came to the suit schedule property at about 1 p.m and try to dig soil for lay foundation stone, then immediately 1st plaintiff and surrounding people rushed to the suit schedule property and with the assistance of neighbours 1st plaintiff resisted the illegal activity of the defendant and his henchmen, then the defendant and his henchmen flew away proclaiming that they will trespass into the suit schedule property and occupy it by hook or crook. It is further submitted that, if the defendants are allowed to do so the 1st plaintiff shall be put to serious and irreparable loss, hence this suit.

3. The 1st plaintiff being unsound mind she is represented by her brother as next friend i.e. the 2nd plaintiff. He is added as 2nd plaintiff as per the orders in

I.A.No.807/2017 dated 15-11-2017.

4.On the other hand, the defendant filed a written statement denying all the allegations levelleld against him by the 1st plaintiff and further submitted that, the list of documents filed by the plaintiff are fabricated with the help of Revenue people. It is further submitted that, the suit schedule property is the absolute and exclusive property of the defendant who got the same through an Unregistered

Will dated 26-06-1991 executed by his father and his father died on 24-09-1994 :3:

and since the date of death of his father he is the absolute and exclusive owner and possessor of the suit schedule property along with some other property.

It is further submitted that, when his peaceful possession and enjoyment has been obstructed by the near relatives of the plaintiff i.e. Nallala

Markendeyulu, husband of the plaintiff and Nallala Satyanarayana, then he filed an Injunction suit against them vide O.S.No.138/2009 and obtained Injunction orders in I.A.374/2009 and the said suit is pending before this court. It is further submitted that, the plaintiff suppressed the pendency of the said suit filed before this court and filed this present suit by showing wrong schedule and by suppressing the said material facts.

It is further submitted that, the alleged possession certificate is rank forged, fabricated, concocted and is brought into existence to have wrongful gain and wrongful loss to the defendant. It is further submitted that, by materially altering the Eastern side boundary with whitener and inserted the name of Nallala

Ramana. It is further submitted that, this suit is totally misconceived and devoid of any merits and there is no cause of action for the suit and the alleged cause of action is false and incorrect and the suit schedule is incorrect, therefore this suit is not maintainable under law.

4. Basing on the above pleadings of both the parties. The following issues are framed for trial:

1). Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of this suit?

2). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Permanent Injunction as prayed for?

3). To what relief?

5. To prove the case the 2nd plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked

Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 and also examined PW2. The defendant examined himself as

DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B11.

6. Heard both counsels.

:4:

For the sake of convenience and proper appreciation issue no.1 and 2 are answered together.

7. ISSUE NO.1 and 2:

The contention of the plaintiffs is that, the 1st plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property i.e. a vacant site of Ac0.02cents situated in

K.O.Mallavaram Village. (The survey number is not mentioned in the plaint schedule) They contend that, the 1st plaintiff is in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same for more than 30 years. They further contend that, the 1st plaintiff raised a thatched house in the said land and she used to reside in it along with her family. They further contend that, inorder to construct RCC slabbed house the 1st plaintiff removed the thatched house two years ago. They further contend that, the 1st plaintiff obtained a possessory certificate in her favour on 30-03-2008 pertaining to the suit schedule property, from Tahsildar Tuni inorder to obtain loan from Housing Board.

8.Insupport of her contention she got marked the possessory certificate issued by the Tahsildar Tuni as Ex.A1. The 2nd plaintiff got marked the medical treatment book of the 1st plaintiff as Exs.A2 and A3 to show that the Mental health of the 1st plaintiff is not well.

9.On a perusal of Ex.A1 possessory certificate it is found that, it is a original certificate. It shows that, Ac0.02 cents of land in K.O.Mallavaram is given to the 1st plaintiff. According to the plaint the suit schedule is Ac0.02 cents of land of

K.O.Mallavaram within the following boundaries I.e. East – Vacant site of Nallala

Ramanamma, South – House of Betha Govindu and N.Satyanarayana, West –

House of defendant, North – House of Kudakala Latchababu and thatched house of Seelam Seethamma.

10.In Ex.A1 the Eastern boundary is altered by placing whitener, it is altered to

Nallala Ramanamma Sthalam, no initial is there on the said alteration. It seems that, the said boundary is altered to suit this case. Since, the boundary is altered

Ex.A1 cannot be considered.

:5:

11.The defendant contend that, the suit schedule property is a part of his

Ac0.11 cents of land which he got under a Will executed by his father Nallala

Bhumulu and he constructed a house in some extent. Insupport of his contention he got marked the Unregistered Will executed by his father, in his favour as

Ex.B1, the death certificate of his father as Ex.B3, the certified copy of four tax receipts pertaining to the year 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2008-2009 as

Ex.B3, the certified copy of house tax receipt for door no.6-18A for the year 2015- 2016, the certificed copy of water tax receipt dated 12-06-2016 as Ex.B5, the

Declaration issued by panchayat Secretary K.O,Mallavaram dated 25-06-2016 certifying that he is residing in a house bearing Assessment No.503 of

K.O.Mallavaram. The defendant also got marked the Declaration issued by Village

Revenue Officer, K.O.Mallavaram certifying that he is residing in a daba house and some vacant place is there within the said boundaries.

12.This suit is filed only for Permanent Injunction. In a suit for Permanent

Injunction the validity of a Will cannot be decided. The defendant filed the documents pertaining to his house bearing Assessment No.503. The plaintiff never denied the existence of the house of the plaintiff as in the suit schedule itself the western boundary is shown as the house of the defendant. From the record it shows that the plaintiff filed this suit with regard to the vacant land, which is on the Eastern side of the house of the defendant.

13.The contention of the plaintiff is that, since 30 years she along with her family is residing in the suit schedule property by raising a thatched hut and two years ago she has removed the said thatched hut in order to construct a RCC slab house. The defendant denied the contention of the plaintiff and to show that there is no thatched hut since 30 years in the suit schedule property, he examined the Panchayat Secretary of Tetagunta Timmapuram who is the incharge of K.O.Mallavaram Village, as DW2. DW2 in his evidence he says that, tax is collected for thatched houses till the year 2015-2016 and after that tax is not collected for thatched houses. He further says that, the name of the1st plaintiff is no where found in the Assessment Register for the years 1988-1989, 1993- 1994,1998-1999, 2003-2004,2008-2009,2013-2014, 2015-2016,2016-2017 and

Revision Register for the year 1978-1979, 1983-1984, 1998-1999, 2016-2017. He :6:

has produced the originals of the said Assessment Registers and Revision

Registers before this court, and got marked the attested copy of said Assessment

Register for the years 1988-1989, 1993-1994,1998-1999,2003-2004,2008- 2009,2013-2014, 2015-2016,2016-2017 as Ex.B8 and Revision Register for the years 1978-1979, 1983-1984, 1998-1999, 2016-2017 as Ex.B9. He also got marked the photo copies of the Assessment Registers of K.O.Mallavaram Village from the year 1998–1992, 1993-1998, 1998-2002, 2003-2008,2008- 2010,2013,2015 and 2016 as Ex.B10 (8 books in number). He also got marked the photo copies of the Revision Register of K.O.Mallavaram village from the years 1978-1979 (block 5 of the village), 1983-1984 (block 1, 3 to 7 of the village), 1988-1999 (block 1 to 7 of the village), 2016-2017 (block 1 to 9 of the village) as

Ex.B11 (23 books in number). (DW2 produced originals and photo copies of

Assessment Registers and Revision Registers of Ex.B10 and B11 and after comparing the photo copies of Assessment Registers and

Revision Registers with the originals of Ex.B10 and B11, this court returned the original Registers to DW2.)

14.In none of the Assessment Register or Revision Register the name of the plaintiff is found. If really, the plaintiff is having a house since 30 years to 2006 or 2007, then the plaintiff would have paid tax to her thatched house. But, the said

Registers no where shows that, the plaintiff ever paid any house tax. Even the plaintiff did not file any tax receipts to show that, she paid tax to the thatched hut which is alleged to be present, since 30 years to prior to two years of filing of this suit.

15.Except Ex.A1 possession certificate the plaintiffs did not file any document

before this court, to show that the 1st plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule

property. Further, in Ex.A1 the Eastern boundary is altered with a whitener and there is no initial on it and no explanation is given by the plaintiffs in their evidence with regard to the said alteration. The said alteration arises a doubt in the case of the plaintiffs.

16.In view of the above discussion this court is of the view that, the plaintiffs failed to prove that the 1st plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property :7:

as on the date of filing of this suit. Therefore, she is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. Hence issue no.1 and 2 are answered against to the plaintiffs.

17. ISSUE NO:3

In view of the findings on issue no.1 and 2 the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction as prayed for.

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

Typed to my dictation by Personal Asst. transcribed by her corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court this the 25th day of April, 2018.

S/d M.Prameela Rani

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TUNI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

PW1/ 27-11-2017 : Nallala Markandeyulu

PW2/ 08-12-2017 : Allu Nagaraju

For Defendants:

DW1/ 03-01-2018 : Nallala Challayya

DW2/ 21-02-2018 : E.Shankar

DW3/ 28-03-2018 : Sambaru Satyanarayana

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1: House site possession certificate Ex.A2: Medical Treatment book of 1st plaintiff dated 25-07-2015 Ex.A3: Medical treatment book of 1st plaintiff dated 24-08-2015

For Defendants:

Ex.B1 : Certified copy of Un-Register Will dated 26-06-1991

Ex.B2 : Certified copy of the Death certificate

Ex.B3 : Certified copy of four house tax receipts

Ex.B4: Certified copy of House tax receipt for the year 2015-2016

Ex.B5: Certified copy of water tax receipt dated 12-06-2016 :8:

Ex.B6: Certified copy of Declaration dated 26-05-2016

Ex.B7: Certified copy of Declaration dated 21-05-2016

Ex.B8: Photocopy of House tax Demand Register

Ex.B9 : Photocopy of Revision Book

Ex.B10: Photo copies of the Assessment Registers (8 books in number)

Ex.B11: Photo copies of the Revision Registers (23 books in number)

S/d M.Prameela Rani

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TUNI.

Plaint presented on08-09-2009 and filed on08-09-2009

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TUNI

PRESENT:KUM.M.PRAMEELA RANI,PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE Wednesday, this the 25th day of April, 2018

Original Suit No.248/2009

Between:

1. Mamidi Atchiyamma, W/o Late Tatamma, Hindu, Housewife, aged 58 years, resident of K.O.Mallavaram Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District.

2. Nallala Markendeyulu, S/o Bhumulu, Weaver, aged 57 years, resident of K.O.Mallavaram Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District. (The 1st plaintiff is being unsound mind represented by her brother as next friend amended as per orders dated 15-11-2017 in I.A.No.807/2017)

..Plaintiffs

And

Nallala Chellayya, S/o Bhumulu, Weaver, aged 57 years, resident of K.O.Mallavaram Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District.

...Defendant

Suit to pass a decree infavour 1st plaintiff and against the defendant for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant and their henchmen from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner whatsoever, and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit: Rs.10,000/-

A court fee of Rs.786/- is paid under Section 26 (C), Article (b) and (c) of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act.

Cause of action for this suit arose on 30-08-2009 when the defendant along with their henchmen came to the plaint schedule property at about 1.00 p.m and tried to dig soil from the plaint schedule property for laying foundation stones and when the 1st plaintiff and surrounding people rushed to the plaint schedule property and along with the assistance of neighbours resisted the illegal activity and high handedness of the defendant and their henchmen due to which they flew away proclaiming that they shall trespass and occupy the plaint schedule property by hook or crook. The plaint schedule property is situated at K.O.Mallavaram village of Tuni Mandal, East Godavri Disrtict and as such the

Honourable Court has got jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

This suit is coming on 12-04-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Krishna Sekhar, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Sri B.V.V.Ramana, Advocate for Defendant and the matter having stood for over consideration till today this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.

2. That the plaintiffs do pay the defendant a sum of Rs.3457/- towards the costs of the suit bearing his own costs of Rs.Nil.

Schedule copy attached to Decree.

Note: “The parties should apply, as soon as possible, for return of all exhibits which they which they wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order”

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this, the 25th day of April, 2018.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TUNI.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For plaintiffs: For defendant:

Stamps on Vakalat Rs. 2-00 Stamps on Plaint Rs. --- Stamps on Petition Rs. 5-00 Stamps on Process Rs. 250-00 Advocate Fee Rs. 3000-00 Typing Charges Rs. 100-00 Writing Charges Rs. 100-00 ----------------- Total Costs Rs. 3457-00 -----------------

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TUNI.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TUNI

PRESENT:KUM.M.PRAMEELA RANI,PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Wednesday, this the 25th day of April, 2018

Original Suit No.248/2009

Between:

1. Mamidi Atchiyamma, W/o Late Tatamma, Hindu, Housewife, aged 58 years, resident of K.O.Mallavaram Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District.

2. Nallala Markendeyulu, S/o Bhumulu, Weaver, aged 57 years, resident of K.O.Mallavaram Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District. (The 1st plaintiff is being unsound mind represented by her brother as next friend amended as per orders dated 15-11-2017 in I.A.No.807/2017)

..Plaintiffs

And

Nallala Chellayya, S/o Bhumulu, Weaver, aged 57 years, resident of K.O.Mallavaram Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District.

...Defendant

This suit is coming on 12-04-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Krishna Sekhar, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Sri B.V.V.Ramana, Advocate for Defendant and the matter having stood for over consideration till today this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed for Permanent Injunction requesting this court to restrain the defendant and his henchmen from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the 1st plaintiff in any manner whatsoever and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the Plaint are :

The 1st plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property i.e.Ac.2.00 cents of vacant land (Survey number not mentioned in the plaint schedule) situated in K.O.Mallavaram Village of Tuni Mandal. It is further submitted that, the 1st plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 30 years. It is further submitted that, the 1st plaintiff raised a thatched house in the suit schedule property and she used to reside in the said house along with her family members. It is further submitted that, in order to construct RCC slabbed house in the suit schedule property the 1st plaintiff got removed the thatched house about two years ago. It is further submitted that, :2:

the 1st plaintiff obtained a possessory certificate dated 30-03-2008 for the suit schedule property from the Tahsildar, Tuni inorder to obtain loan from Housing

Board and the said possessory certificate clearly proves that, the 1st plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

It is further submitted that, the defendant is no way concerned with the suit schedule property and he has got no right whatsoever in the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that, the defendant is having a house property towards west of the suit schedule property and since two weeks he is making hectic efforts to trespass and occupy the suit schedule property highhandedly and illegally as he is a highly influential person and has got no respect towards law. It is further submitted that, the neighbours of the suit schedule property and the 1st plaintiff resisted the highhanded act of the defendant and his men.

It is further submitted that, on 30-08-2009 the defendant along with his henchmen came to the suit schedule property at about 1 p.m and try to dig soil for lay foundation stone, then immediately 1st plaintiff and surrounding people rushed to the suit schedule property and with the assistance of neighbours 1st plaintiff resisted the illegal activity of the defendant and his henchmen, then the defendant and his henchmen flew away proclaiming that they will trespass into the suit schedule property and occupy it by hook or crook. It is further submitted that, if the defendants are allowed to do so the 1st plaintiff shall be put to serious and irreparable loss, hence this suit.

3. The 1st plaintiff being unsound mind she is represented by her brother as next friend i.e. the 2nd plaintiff. He is added as 2nd plaintiff as per the orders in

I.A.No.807/2017 dated 15-11-2017.

4.On the other hand, the defendant filed a written statement denying all the allegations levelleld against him by the 1st plaintiff and further submitted that, the list of documents filed by the plaintiff are fabricated with the help of Revenue people. It is further submitted that, the suit schedule property is the absolute and exclusive property of the defendant who got the same through an Unregistered

Will dated 26-06-1991 executed by his father and his father died on 24-09-1994 :3:

and since the date of death of his father he is the absolute and exclusive owner and possessor of the suit schedule property along with some other property.

It is further submitted that, when his peaceful possession and enjoyment has been obstructed by the near relatives of the plaintiff i.e. Nallala

Markendeyulu, husband of the plaintiff and Nallala Satyanarayana, then he filed an Injunction suit against them vide O.S.No.138/2009 and obtained Injunction orders in I.A.374/2009 and the said suit is pending before this court. It is further submitted that, the plaintiff suppressed the pendency of the said suit filed before this court and filed this present suit by showing wrong schedule and by suppressing the said material facts.

It is further submitted that, the alleged possession certificate is rank forged, fabricated, concocted and is brought into existence to have wrongful gain and wrongful loss to the defendant. It is further submitted that, by materially altering the Eastern side boundary with whitener and inserted the name of Nallala

Ramana. It is further submitted that, this suit is totally misconceived and devoid of any merits and there is no cause of action for the suit and the alleged cause of action is false and incorrect and the suit schedule is incorrect, therefore this suit is not maintainable under law.

4. Basing on the above pleadings of both the parties. The following issues are framed for trial:

1). Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of this suit?

2). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Permanent Injunction as prayed for?

3). To what relief?

5. To prove the case the 2nd plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked

Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 and also examined PW2. The defendant examined himself as

DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B11.

6. Heard both counsels.

:4:

For the sake of convenience and proper appreciation issue no.1 and 2 are answered together.

7. ISSUE NO.1 and 2:

The contention of the plaintiffs is that, the 1st plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property i.e. a vacant site of Ac0.02cents situated in

K.O.Mallavaram Village. (The survey number is not mentioned in the plaint schedule) They contend that, the 1st plaintiff is in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same for more than 30 years. They further contend that, the 1st plaintiff raised a thatched house in the said land and she used to reside in it along with her family. They further contend that, inorder to construct RCC slabbed house the 1st plaintiff removed the thatched house two years ago. They further contend that, the 1st plaintiff obtained a possessory certificate in her favour on 30-03-2008 pertaining to the suit schedule property, from Tahsildar Tuni inorder to obtain loan from Housing Board.

8.Insupport of her contention she got marked the possessory certificate issued by the Tahsildar Tuni as Ex.A1. The 2nd plaintiff got marked the medical treatment book of the 1st plaintiff as Exs.A2 and A3 to show that the Mental health of the 1st plaintiff is not well.

9.On a perusal of Ex.A1 possessory certificate it is found that, it is a original certificate. It shows that, Ac0.02 cents of land in K.O.Mallavaram is given to the 1st plaintiff. According to the plaint the suit schedule is Ac0.02 cents of land of

K.O.Mallavaram within the following boundaries I.e. East – Vacant site of Nallala

Ramanamma, South – House of Betha Govindu and N.Satyanarayana, West –

House of defendant, North – House of Kudakala Latchababu and thatched house of Seelam Seethamma.

10.In Ex.A1 the Eastern boundary is altered by placing whitener, it is altered to

Nallala Ramanamma Sthalam, no initial is there on the said alteration. It seems that, the said boundary is altered to suit this case. Since, the boundary is altered

Ex.A1 cannot be considered.

:5:

11.The defendant contend that, the suit schedule property is a part of his

Ac0.11 cents of land which he got under a Will executed by his father Nallala

Bhumulu and he constructed a house in some extent. Insupport of his contention he got marked the Unregistered Will executed by his father, in his favour as

Ex.B1, the death certificate of his father as Ex.B3, the certified copy of four tax receipts pertaining to the year 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2008-2009 as

Ex.B3, the certified copy of house tax receipt for door no.6-18A for the year 2015- 2016, the certificed copy of water tax receipt dated 12-06-2016 as Ex.B5, the

Declaration issued by panchayat Secretary K.O,Mallavaram dated 25-06-2016 certifying that he is residing in a house bearing Assessment No.503 of

K.O.Mallavaram. The defendant also got marked the Declaration issued by Village

Revenue Officer, K.O.Mallavaram certifying that he is residing in a daba house and some vacant place is there within the said boundaries.

12.This suit is filed only for Permanent Injunction. In a suit for Permanent

Injunction the validity of a Will cannot be decided. The defendant filed the documents pertaining to his house bearing Assessment No.503. The plaintiff never denied the existence of the house of the plaintiff as in the suit schedule itself the western boundary is shown as the house of the defendant. From the record it shows that the plaintiff filed this suit with regard to the vacant land, which is on the Eastern side of the house of the defendant.

13.The contention of the plaintiff is that, since 30 years she along with her family is residing in the suit schedule property by raising a thatched hut and two years ago she has removed the said thatched hut in order to construct a RCC slab house. The defendant denied the contention of the plaintiff and to show that there is no thatched hut since 30 years in the suit schedule property, he examined the Panchayat Secretary of Tetagunta Timmapuram who is the incharge of K.O.Mallavaram Village, as DW2. DW2 in his evidence he says that, tax is collected for thatched houses till the year 2015-2016 and after that tax is not collected for thatched houses. He further says that, the name of the1st plaintiff is no where found in the Assessment Register for the years 1988-1989, 1993- 1994,1998-1999, 2003-2004,2008-2009,2013-2014, 2015-2016,2016-2017 and

Revision Register for the year 1978-1979, 1983-1984, 1998-1999, 2016-2017. He :6:

has produced the originals of the said Assessment Registers and Revision

Registers before this court, and got marked the attested copy of said Assessment

Register for the years 1988-1989, 1993-1994,1998-1999,2003-2004,2008- 2009,2013-2014, 2015-2016,2016-2017 as Ex.B8 and Revision Register for the years 1978-1979, 1983-1984, 1998-1999, 2016-2017 as Ex.B9. He also got marked the photo copies of the Assessment Registers of K.O.Mallavaram Village from the year 1998–1992, 1993-1998, 1998-2002, 2003-2008,2008- 2010,2013,2015 and 2016 as Ex.B10 (8 books in number). He also got marked the photo copies of the Revision Register of K.O.Mallavaram village from the years 1978-1979 (block 5 of the village), 1983-1984 (block 1, 3 to 7 of the village), 1988-1999 (block 1 to 7 of the village), 2016-2017 (block 1 to 9 of the village) as

Ex.B11 (23 books in number). (DW2 produced originals and photo copies of

Assessment Registers and Revision Registers of Ex.B10 and B11 and after comparing the photo copies of Assessment Registers and

Revision Registers with the originals of Ex.B10 and B11, this court returned the original Registers to DW2.)

14.In none of the Assessment Register or Revision Register the name of the plaintiff is found. If really, the plaintiff is having a house since 30 years to 2006 or 2007, then the plaintiff would have paid tax to her thatched house. But, the said

Registers no where shows that, the plaintiff ever paid any house tax. Even the plaintiff did not file any tax receipts to show that, she paid tax to the thatched hut which is alleged to be present, since 30 years to prior to two years of filing of this suit.

15.Except Ex.A1 possession certificate the plaintiffs did not file any document

before this court, to show that the 1st plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule

property. Further, in Ex.A1 the Eastern boundary is altered with a whitener and there is no initial on it and no explanation is given by the plaintiffs in their evidence with regard to the said alteration. The said alteration arises a doubt in the case of the plaintiffs.

16.In view of the above discussion this court is of the view that, the plaintiffs failed to prove that the 1st plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property :7:

as on the date of filing of this suit. Therefore, she is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. Hence issue no.1 and 2 are answered against to the plaintiffs.

17. ISSUE NO:3

In view of the findings on issue no.1 and 2 the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction as prayed for.

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

Typed to my dictation by Personal Asst. transcribed by her corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court this the 25th day of April, 2018.

S/d M.Prameela Rani

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TUNI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

PW1/ 27-11-2017 : Nallala Markandeyulu

PW2/ 08-12-2017 : Allu Nagaraju

For Defendants:

DW1/ 03-01-2018 : Nallala Challayya

DW2/ 21-02-2018 : E.Shankar

DW3/ 28-03-2018 : Sambaru Satyanarayana

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1: House site possession certificate Ex.A2: Medical Treatment book of 1st plaintiff dated 25-07-2015 Ex.A3: Medical treatment book of 1st plaintiff dated 24-08-2015

For Defendants:

Ex.B1 : Certified copy of Un-Register Will dated 26-06-1991

Ex.B2 : Certified copy of the Death certificate

Ex.B3 : Certified copy of four house tax receipts

Ex.B4: Certified copy of House tax receipt for the year 2015-2016

Ex.B5: Certified copy of water tax receipt dated 12-06-2016 :8:

Ex.B6: Certified copy of Declaration dated 26-05-2016

Ex.B7: Certified copy of Declaration dated 21-05-2016

Ex.B8: Photocopy of House tax Demand Register

Ex.B9 : Photocopy of Revision Book

Ex.B10: Photo copies of the Assessment Registers (8 books in number)

Ex.B11: Photo copies of the Revision Registers (23 books in number)

S/d M.Prameela Rani

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TUNI.

Plaint presented on08-09-2009 and filed on08-09-2009

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TUNI

PRESENT:KUM.M.PRAMEELA RANI,PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE Wednesday, this the 25th day of April, 2018

Original Suit No.248/2009

Between:

1. Mamidi Atchiyamma, W/o Late Tatamma, Hindu, Housewife, aged 58 years, resident of K.O.Mallavaram Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District.

2. Nallala Markendeyulu, S/o Bhumulu, Weaver, aged 57 years, resident of K.O.Mallavaram Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District. (The 1st plaintiff is being unsound mind represented by her brother as next friend amended as per orders dated 15-11-2017 in I.A.No.807/2017)

..Plaintiffs

And

Nallala Chellayya, S/o Bhumulu, Weaver, aged 57 years, resident of K.O.Mallavaram Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District.

...Defendant

Suit to pass a decree infavour 1st plaintiff and against the defendant for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant and their henchmen from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner whatsoever, and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit: Rs.10,000/-

A court fee of Rs.786/- is paid under Section 26 (C), Article (b) and (c) of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act.

Cause of action for this suit arose on 30-08-2009 when the defendant along with their henchmen came to the plaint schedule property at about 1.00 p.m and tried to dig soil from the plaint schedule property for laying foundation stones and when the 1st plaintiff and surrounding people rushed to the plaint schedule property and along with the assistance of neighbours resisted the illegal activity and high handedness of the defendant and their henchmen due to which they flew away proclaiming that they shall trespass and occupy the plaint schedule property by hook or crook. The plaint schedule property is situated at K.O.Mallavaram village of Tuni Mandal, East Godavri Disrtict and as such the

Honourable Court has got jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

This suit is coming on 12-04-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Krishna Sekhar, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Sri B.V.V.Ramana, Advocate for Defendant and the matter having stood for over consideration till today this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.

2. That the plaintiffs do pay the defendant a sum of Rs.3457/- towards the costs of the suit bearing his own costs of Rs.Nil.

Schedule copy attached to Decree.

Note: “The parties should apply, as soon as possible, for return of all exhibits which they which they wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order”

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this, the 25th day of April, 2018.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TUNI.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For plaintiffs: For defendant:

Stamps on Vakalat Rs. 2-00 Stamps on Plaint Rs. --- Stamps on Petition Rs. 5-00 Stamps on Process Rs. 250-00 Advocate Fee Rs. 3000-00 Typing Charges Rs. 100-00 Writing Charges Rs. 100-00 ----------------- Total Costs Rs. 3457-00 -----------------

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TUNI.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TUNI

PRESENT:KUM.M.PRAMEELA RANI,PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Thursday, this the 26th day of April, 2018

Original Suit No.185/2012

Between: Gosala Thatarao, S/o China Appanna, Hindu, aged about 54 years, Cultivation, residing at D.No.4-135, Ankampeta, H/o Palteru, Payakaraopeta Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District. ..Plaintiff

And

Gosala Krishna, S/o Late China Appanna, Hindu, aged about 52 years, Business, residing at D.No.5-19-21, Muslim Street, Near Ryot Bazar, Tuni, East Godavari

District. ...Defendant

This suit is coming on 24-04-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.V.V.Ramana, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri V.Apparao, Advocate for Defendant and the matter having stood for over consideration till today this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed for Permanent Injunction requesting this court to restrain the defendant, his men and servants from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are :

the plaintiff purchased a part of the suit schedule property in the name of his wife Bhanumathi through a Registered Sale Deed dated 13-12-1990 and the rest of the property covered under the schedule is purchased by him under a

Registered Sale Deed dated 16-05-1994, thus he purchased the total extent of suit schedule property i.e. ½ in his name and the other ½ in the name of his wife.

It is further submitted that, his wife died as such he is managing the affairs of the entire property by himself and also on behalf the family as kartha,therefore he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that, the Revenue Authorities recognized his right, title and possession and issued Ryot passbook and title deed book in his favour in the year 1996, therefore he is in continuous possession of the suit schedule property since twenty years from the date of the said purchase.

:2:

It is further submitted that, the defendant has no manner of right, title or possession over the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that, the defendant is having some lands on the northern side of item no.1 of the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that, the defendant is his natural brother and he has no right, title or possession over the suit schedule property at any point of time. It is further submitted that, previously the plaintiff and the defendants did business and disputes arose among them in connection with money transactions and in view of the said disputes the defendant started canvassing in the village that the plaintiff owe some amount to the defendant and he have the signatures of the plaintiff on blank papers and he will create nominal and collusive documents inrespect of the suit schedule property.

It is further submitted that, on coming to know about the evil intention of the defendant he got issued a public notice through Eenadu daily on 25-06-2012 and thereafter got issued a legal notice dated 23-06-2012 questioning the illegal acts of the defendant and thereafter the defendant without issuing any appropriate reply, forged a nominal and collusive Agreement of Sale in his favour through his henchmen and filed a suit on the file of 3rd Addl. District Court,

Kakinada vide O.S.No.91/2012 contending that, the plaintiff has executed an

Agreement of Sale on 20-12-2009 inrespect of item no.1 of the suit schedule property and received an advance amount of Rs.8,10,000/-, which is false. It is further submitted that, the defendant made a publication in Eenadu daily on 28- 06-2012 through his counsel informing the fact of filing the said suit.

It is further submitted that, the defendant with a malicious intention and with a view to take vengeance against him, employed his henchmen and made an attempt to trespass into the property on 04-07-2012 and then he lodged a report in Tuni Rural Police Station against the defendant and his henchmen. It is further submitted that, the attempt of the trespassed into the suit schedule property is day – to – day and he may carryout his threat at any time and unless the defendant is restrained by way of Injunction he cannot protect hi s possession over the suit schedule property, hence this suit.

:3:

3.On the other hand the defendant filed a written statement denying all the allegations levelled against him by the plaintiff and further submitted that, the plaintiff executed an Agreement of Sale in his favour on 20-12-2009 and basing on the said agreement he filed O.S.No.92/2012 on the file of 3rd Addl. District and

Sessions Kakinada and same is pending. It is further submitted that, he filed an

Interlocutory Application seeking the relief of not to alienate the property covered under the said agreement of sale dated 20-12-2012 which is item no.1 in this suit.

It is further submitted that, he and plaintiff leased out their entire property including the suit schedule property to one Kona Satyanarayana two years ago and ever since the said Kona Satyanarayana he is in possession and enjoyment of the same as a tenant. It is further submitted that, recently Kona Satyanararyana filed ATC No.1/2012 on the file of this court stating that, he is a statutory tenant and shall not be evicted him by using force, and the said application is still pending.

It is further submitted that, when the plaintiff raised dispute with regard to the possession of the suit schedule property, the Police and the Revenue Officials interfered and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram launched section 107

Cr.P.C proceedings as he felt that the plaintiff is likely to commit breach of peace and may disturb the Public tranquility and the said proceedings are still pending.

It is further submitted that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, but he is not in physical and actual possession of the same. It is further submitted that, the plaintiff filed this suit suppressing the material facts and falsely claiming that, he is in actual physical possession of the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that, he never proclaimed that he would create nominal documents by forging the signature of the plaintiff and the cause of action is invented for the purpose of filing of this suit, therefore it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to dismiss this suit with exemplary costs.

:4:

4. Basing on the above pleadings this court framed the following issues:

1). Whether the plaintiff is in legal possession of the suit schedule property at the time of filing of this suit?

2). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent

Injunction as prayed for?

3). To what relief?

5. To prove the case the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked

Exs.A1 to Ex.A13 and also examined PWs 2 and 3. The defendant examined himself as DW1 and no documents are marked on his behalf, he also examined his brother as DW2.

6. Heard both counsels.

For the sake of convenience and proper appreciation issue no.1 and 2 are answered together.

7. ISSUE NO.1 and 2:

The contention of the plaintiff is that, he is the absolute owner of Ac1.86 cents in Survey No.85/11 i.e. part of item no.1 of the suit schedule property. He further contend that, he purchased the said property under a Registered Sale

Deed vide Document No.1133/1994 executed by Chodisetti Subbarao. Insupport of his contention he got marked the said Sale Deed as Ex.A2.

8.On a perusal of Ex.A2 it is found that, it is executed by Chodisetti subbarao infavour of the plaintiff and under the said Sale Deed an extent of Ac1.86 cents in

Survey No.85/11 i.e. part of item no.1 of the suit schedule property is sold to the plaintiff.

9.The plaintiff further contend that, he purchased Ac1.75 cents of land in

Survey No.87/5 i.e. another part of item no.1 of the suit schedule property, in the name of his wife Bhanumathi under a Registered Sale Deed vide Document

No.2034/1990 executed by Vangalapudi Venkata Suryanarayana. He further contend that, his wife died and as such he is managing the affairs of the entire property. Insupport of his contention he got marked the said Sale Deed as Ex.A1.

:5:

On a perusal of Ex.A1 it is found that, it is executed by Vangalapudi Venkata

Suryanarayana infavour of Bhanumathi. Under the said sale deed Ac1.75cents of land in Survey No.85/7 is sold to the said Bhanumathi.

10.The plaintiff also got marked the original Encumbrance certificate issued by

Sub Registrar, Tuni as Ex.A3. On a perusla of Ex.A3 Encumbrance certificate it shows that, Gosala Bhanumathi purchased Ac1.75 cents of land in Survey No.85/7 and got it Registered on 14-12-1990, Ac0.20 cents in Survey No.85/7 and got it

Registered on 14-12-1990 and Ac0.20 cents of land in Survey No.85/7 and got it

Registered on 14-12-1990.

11.The plaintiff to show possession over the suit schedule property he got marked his pattadar passbook as Ex.A8, his title deed book as Ex.A9, Mee Seva copy of 1-B Namuna (ROR) for the land in Survey No.85/11 issued in his name as

Ex.A12, Mee Seva copy of 1-B Namuna (ROR) for the land in Survey No.85/7 issued in his name as Ex.A13. On a peruals of Ex.A8 it shows that, the plaintiff is in possession of Ac1.86 cents of land in Survey No.85/11 and Ac1.65 cents of land in Survey No.85/7. On a perual of Ex.A9 it shows that, the plaintiff is the owner of

Ac1.86 cents of land in Survey No.85/11 and Ac1.65 cents of land in Survey

No.85/7. On a perusal of Ex.A12 and A13 it shows that, the plaintiff is in possession of Ac1.86 cents of land in Survey No.85/11 and Ac1.65 cents of land in

Survey No.85/7 i.e. item no.1 of the suit schedule property.

12.The defendant in his written statement submitted that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, but he is not in actual possession and physical possession of the suit schedule property. He contend that, the plaintiff gave the suit schedule proprty and other properties to one Kona

Satyanarayana for lease and presently the said Kona Satyanarayana is in possession of the suit schedule property as a tenant.

13.Though, the defendant contend that, the said Kona Satyanaryana is in possession of the suit schedule property as a tenant, but he did not place any document before this court to prove the same and he has also not examined the said Kona Satyanarayana as a witness in this case to prove the same. Therefore, :6:

the fact that the said Kona Satyanarayana is in possession of the suit schedule property is not proved.

14.The plaintiff contend that, on 04-07-2012 the defendant and his men attempted to trespass into the suit schedule property, then he lodged a police report in Tuni Rural Police Station. In support of his contention he got marked the said Police Report as Ex.A7. On a perusal of Ex.A7 it is found that, the plaintiff gave the said Police Report when the defendant and his men ploughed the suit schedule property and sowed seeds in it and caused loss to the plaintiff. The defendant in his cross examination admitted that, the plaintiff lodged a Police

Report against him, but he says that the said Police Report is filed saying that, he tried to take away the produce from the field. From Ex.A7 it shows that, the defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff.

15.The defendant contend that, the plaintiff executed an Agreement of Sale in his favour. But, the defendant did not produce the said Agreement of Sale before this court to prove his contention. Further, in his cross examination it is elicited that, possession is not handed over to him under the said Agreement of Sale.

When, possession is not handed over to the defendant, then he cannot claim right of possession or enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

16.In view of the above discussion this court is of the view that, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for. Issue no.1 and 2 are answered infavour of the plaintiff.

17.ISSUE NO:3In view of the findings on issue no.1 and 2 the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction as prayed for.

18.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs, the defendant, his men and servants are hereby restrained from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Asst. transcribed by her corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court this the 26th day of April, 2018

S/d M.Prameela Rani

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TUNI.

:7:

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

PW1/ 18-12-2017 : Gosala Tatarao

PW2/ 25-01-2018 : Buddala Apparao

PW3/ 25-01-2018 : Bodapati Nagababu

For Defendant:

DW1/ 23-02-2018 : Gosala Krishna

DW2/ 13-03-2018 : Gosala Srinivas

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of Register Extract of Registered Sale Deed Document No.2034/1990 Ex.A2: Certified copy of Register extract of Registered Sale Deed vide Document No.1133/1994 Ex.A3: Original Encumbrance certificate dated 02-07-2012 Ex.A4: Office copy of legal notice dated 23-06-2012 Ex.A5: Original Paper Publication dated 25-06-2012 Ex.A6: Original Paper Publication dated 28-06-2012 Ex.A7: Office copy of the Police Report dated 04-07-2012 Ex.A8: Original pattadar passbook Ex.A9: Title Deed Ex.A10: Served copy of the plaint in O.S.No.91/2012 on the file of IIIrd Addl.

District Judge Court, Kakinada

Ex.A11: Served copy of the Caveat dated 06-07-2012 Ex.A12: Mee-Seva Copy of 1-B Namuna Ex.A13: Mee-Seva copy of 1-B Namuna

For Defendant: ..Nil..

S/d M.Prameela Rani

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TUNI.

Plaint presented on 09-07-2012 and filed on 10-07-2012

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TUNI

PRESENT:KUM.M.PRAMEELA RANI,PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE Thursday, this the 26th day of April, 2018

Original Suit No.185/2012

Between: Gosala Thatarao, S/o China Appanna, Hindu, aged about 54 years, Cultivation, residing at D.No.4-135, Ankampeta, H/o Palteru, Payakaraopeta Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District. ..Plaintiff

And

Gosala Krishna, S/o Late China Appanna, Hindu, aged about 52 years, Business, residing at D.No.5-19-21, Muslim Street, Near Ryot Bazar, Tuni, East Godavari

District. ...Defendant

Suit to pass a decree infavour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for grant of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant, his men and servants from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit: Rs.10,000/- x 3 = Rs.30,000/-

A court fee of Rs.786/- x 3 = Rs.2358/- is paid under section 26 (c) of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act.

Cause of action for the purpose of this suit aroses on 13-12-1990 when the plaintiff purchased a part of the property in the name of his wife Bhanumathi and on 16-05-1994 when the remaining part of the schedule purchased by the plaintiff in his name and after the death of his wife Bhanumati and while the plaintiff enjoying the property with absolute right and title and subsequently when the government issued ryot pass book and title deed in his name and subsequently when the defendant purchased some lands on the side of the plaint schedule property on northern side and one part of southern side and he with a malicious intention to grab the plaint schedule property proclaimed to create some nominal documents by forging the signatures of the plaintiff and when the plaintiff gave a notice on 23-06-2012 and also a publication notice on 25-06-2012 and later the defendant while forging an agreement filed a suit on the file of III ADJ.Court, Kakinada in O.S.No.91/2012 and made a publication in Eenadu daily on 28-06-2012 and subsequently on 04-07-2012 when the defendant tried to trespass into the property by dispossessing the plaintiff and when the plaintiff gave a report to the police on the same day and on all other days, when the defendant is making attempting to trespass into the property with the help of his henchmen which are all within the jurisdiction of your Honourable Court at

Kavalapadu village, Tuni Mandal, where the property is situated and where the cause of action aroses.

This suit is coming on 24-04-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.V.V.Ramana, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri V.Apparao, Advocate for Defendant and the matter having stood for over consideration till today this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs.

2. That the defendant, his men and servants are hereby restrained from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.

3. That the defendant do pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.11,770/- towards the costs of the suit bearing his own costs of Rs.Nil

Schedule copy attached to decree.

Note: “The parties should apply, as soon as possible, for return of all exhibits which they which they wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order” Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this, the 26th day of April, 2018

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TUNI.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For plaintiff: For defendant:

Stamps on Vakalat Rs 2-00 Stamps on Plaint Rs. 2358-00 Stamps on Petition Rs 10-00 Stamps on Process Rs 200-00 Cost memo not filed. Advocate Fee Rs. 9000-00 Typing Charges Rs. 100-00 Writing Charges Rs. 100-00 ----------------- Total Costs Rs. 11770-00 -----------------

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TUNI.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TUNI

PRESENT:KUM.M.PRAMEELA RANI,PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Thursday, this the 26th day of April, 2018

Original Suit No.185/2012

Between: Gosala Thatarao, S/o China Appanna, Hindu, aged about 54 years, Cultivation, residing at D.No.4-135, Ankampeta, H/o Palteru, Payakaraopeta Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District. ..Plaintiff

And

Gosala Krishna, S/o Late China Appanna, Hindu, aged about 52 years, Business, residing at D.No.5-19-21, Muslim Street, Near Ryot Bazar, Tuni, East Godavari

District. ...Defendant

This suit is coming on 24-04-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.V.V.Ramana, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri V.Apparao, Advocate for Defendant and the matter having stood for over consideration till today this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed for Permanent Injunction requesting this court to restrain the defendant, his men and servants from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are :

the plaintiff purchased a part of the suit schedule property in the name of his wife Bhanumathi through a Registered Sale Deed dated 13-12-1990 and the rest of the property covered under the schedule is purchased by him under a

Registered Sale Deed dated 16-05-1994, thus he purchased the total extent of suit schedule property i.e. ½ in his name and the other ½ in the name of his wife.

It is further submitted that, his wife died as such he is managing the affairs of the entire property by himself and also on behalf the family as kartha,therefore he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that, the Revenue Authorities recognized his right, title and possession and issued Ryot passbook and title deed book in his favour in the year 1996, therefore he is in continuous possession of the suit schedule property since twenty years from the date of the said purchase.

:2:

It is further submitted that, the defendant has no manner of right, title or possession over the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that, the defendant is having some lands on the northern side of item no.1 of the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that, the defendant is his natural brother and he has no right, title or possession over the suit schedule property at any point of time. It is further submitted that, previously the plaintiff and the defendants did business and disputes arose among them in connection with money transactions and in view of the said disputes the defendant started canvassing in the village that the plaintiff owe some amount to the defendant and he have the signatures of the plaintiff on blank papers and he will create nominal and collusive documents inrespect of the suit schedule property.

It is further submitted that, on coming to know about the evil intention of the defendant he got issued a public notice through Eenadu daily on 25-06-2012 and thereafter got issued a legal notice dated 23-06-2012 questioning the illegal acts of the defendant and thereafter the defendant without issuing any appropriate reply, forged a nominal and collusive Agreement of Sale in his favour through his henchmen and filed a suit on the file of 3rd Addl. District Court,

Kakinada vide O.S.No.91/2012 contending that, the plaintiff has executed an

Agreement of Sale on 20-12-2009 inrespect of item no.1 of the suit schedule property and received an advance amount of Rs.8,10,000/-, which is false. It is further submitted that, the defendant made a publication in Eenadu daily on 28- 06-2012 through his counsel informing the fact of filing the said suit.

It is further submitted that, the defendant with a malicious intention and with a view to take vengeance against him, employed his henchmen and made an attempt to trespass into the property on 04-07-2012 and then he lodged a report in Tuni Rural Police Station against the defendant and his henchmen. It is further submitted that, the attempt of the trespassed into the suit schedule property is day – to – day and he may carryout his threat at any time and unless the defendant is restrained by way of Injunction he cannot protect hi s possession over the suit schedule property, hence this suit.

:3:

3.On the other hand the defendant filed a written statement denying all the allegations levelled against him by the plaintiff and further submitted that, the plaintiff executed an Agreement of Sale in his favour on 20-12-2009 and basing on the said agreement he filed O.S.No.92/2012 on the file of 3rd Addl. District and

Sessions Kakinada and same is pending. It is further submitted that, he filed an

Interlocutory Application seeking the relief of not to alienate the property covered under the said agreement of sale dated 20-12-2012 which is item no.1 in this suit.

It is further submitted that, he and plaintiff leased out their entire property including the suit schedule property to one Kona Satyanarayana two years ago and ever since the said Kona Satyanarayana he is in possession and enjoyment of the same as a tenant. It is further submitted that, recently Kona Satyanararyana filed ATC No.1/2012 on the file of this court stating that, he is a statutory tenant and shall not be evicted him by using force, and the said application is still pending.

It is further submitted that, when the plaintiff raised dispute with regard to the possession of the suit schedule property, the Police and the Revenue Officials interfered and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram launched section 107

Cr.P.C proceedings as he felt that the plaintiff is likely to commit breach of peace and may disturb the Public tranquility and the said proceedings are still pending.

It is further submitted that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, but he is not in physical and actual possession of the same. It is further submitted that, the plaintiff filed this suit suppressing the material facts and falsely claiming that, he is in actual physical possession of the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that, he never proclaimed that he would create nominal documents by forging the signature of the plaintiff and the cause of action is invented for the purpose of filing of this suit, therefore it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to dismiss this suit with exemplary costs.

:4:

4. Basing on the above pleadings this court framed the following issues:

1). Whether the plaintiff is in legal possession of the suit schedule property at the time of filing of this suit?

2). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent

Injunction as prayed for?

3). To what relief?

5. To prove the case the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked

Exs.A1 to Ex.A13 and also examined PWs 2 and 3. The defendant examined himself as DW1 and no documents are marked on his behalf, he also examined his brother as DW2.

6. Heard both counsels.

For the sake of convenience and proper appreciation issue no.1 and 2 are answered together.

7. ISSUE NO.1 and 2:

The contention of the plaintiff is that, he is the absolute owner of Ac1.86 cents in Survey No.85/11 i.e. part of item no.1 of the suit schedule property. He further contend that, he purchased the said property under a Registered Sale

Deed vide Document No.1133/1994 executed by Chodisetti Subbarao. Insupport of his contention he got marked the said Sale Deed as Ex.A2.

8.On a perusal of Ex.A2 it is found that, it is executed by Chodisetti subbarao infavour of the plaintiff and under the said Sale Deed an extent of Ac1.86 cents in

Survey No.85/11 i.e. part of item no.1 of the suit schedule property is sold to the plaintiff.

9.The plaintiff further contend that, he purchased Ac1.75 cents of land in

Survey No.87/5 i.e. another part of item no.1 of the suit schedule property, in the name of his wife Bhanumathi under a Registered Sale Deed vide Document

No.2034/1990 executed by Vangalapudi Venkata Suryanarayana. He further contend that, his wife died and as such he is managing the affairs of the entire property. Insupport of his contention he got marked the said Sale Deed as Ex.A1.

:5:

On a perusal of Ex.A1 it is found that, it is executed by Vangalapudi Venkata

Suryanarayana infavour of Bhanumathi. Under the said sale deed Ac1.75cents of land in Survey No.85/7 is sold to the said Bhanumathi.

10.The plaintiff also got marked the original Encumbrance certificate issued by

Sub Registrar, Tuni as Ex.A3. On a perusla of Ex.A3 Encumbrance certificate it shows that, Gosala Bhanumathi purchased Ac1.75 cents of land in Survey No.85/7 and got it Registered on 14-12-1990, Ac0.20 cents in Survey No.85/7 and got it

Registered on 14-12-1990 and Ac0.20 cents of land in Survey No.85/7 and got it

Registered on 14-12-1990.

11.The plaintiff to show possession over the suit schedule property he got marked his pattadar passbook as Ex.A8, his title deed book as Ex.A9, Mee Seva copy of 1-B Namuna (ROR) for the land in Survey No.85/11 issued in his name as

Ex.A12, Mee Seva copy of 1-B Namuna (ROR) for the land in Survey No.85/7 issued in his name as Ex.A13. On a peruals of Ex.A8 it shows that, the plaintiff is in possession of Ac1.86 cents of land in Survey No.85/11 and Ac1.65 cents of land in Survey No.85/7. On a perual of Ex.A9 it shows that, the plaintiff is the owner of

Ac1.86 cents of land in Survey No.85/11 and Ac1.65 cents of land in Survey

No.85/7. On a perusal of Ex.A12 and A13 it shows that, the plaintiff is in possession of Ac1.86 cents of land in Survey No.85/11 and Ac1.65 cents of land in

Survey No.85/7 i.e. item no.1 of the suit schedule property.

12.The defendant in his written statement submitted that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, but he is not in actual possession and physical possession of the suit schedule property. He contend that, the plaintiff gave the suit schedule proprty and other properties to one Kona

Satyanarayana for lease and presently the said Kona Satyanarayana is in possession of the suit schedule property as a tenant.

13.Though, the defendant contend that, the said Kona Satyanaryana is in possession of the suit schedule property as a tenant, but he did not place any document before this court to prove the same and he has also not examined the said Kona Satyanarayana as a witness in this case to prove the same. Therefore, :6:

the fact that the said Kona Satyanarayana is in possession of the suit schedule property is not proved.

14.The plaintiff contend that, on 04-07-2012 the defendant and his men attempted to trespass into the suit schedule property, then he lodged a police report in Tuni Rural Police Station. In support of his contention he got marked the said Police Report as Ex.A7. On a perusal of Ex.A7 it is found that, the plaintiff gave the said Police Report when the defendant and his men ploughed the suit schedule property and sowed seeds in it and caused loss to the plaintiff. The defendant in his cross examination admitted that, the plaintiff lodged a Police

Report against him, but he says that the said Police Report is filed saying that, he tried to take away the produce from the field. From Ex.A7 it shows that, the defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff.

15.The defendant contend that, the plaintiff executed an Agreement of Sale in his favour. But, the defendant did not produce the said Agreement of Sale before this court to prove his contention. Further, in his cross examination it is elicited that, possession is not handed over to him under the said Agreement of Sale.

When, possession is not handed over to the defendant, then he cannot claim right of possession or enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

16.In view of the above discussion this court is of the view that, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for. Issue no.1 and 2 are answered infavour of the plaintiff.

17.ISSUE NO:3In view of the findings on issue no.1 and 2 the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction as prayed for.

18.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs, the defendant, his men and servants are hereby restrained from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Asst. transcribed by her corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court this the 26th day of April, 2018

S/d M.Prameela Rani

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TUNI.

:7:

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

PW1/ 18-12-2017 : Gosala Tatarao

PW2/ 25-01-2018 : Buddala Apparao

PW3/ 25-01-2018 : Bodapati Nagababu

For Defendant:

DW1/ 23-02-2018 : Gosala Krishna

DW2/ 13-03-2018 : Gosala Srinivas

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of Register Extract of Registered Sale Deed Document No.2034/1990 Ex.A2: Certified copy of Register extract of Registered Sale Deed vide Document No.1133/1994 Ex.A3: Original Encumbrance certificate dated 02-07-2012 Ex.A4: Office copy of legal notice dated 23-06-2012 Ex.A5: Original Paper Publication dated 25-06-2012 Ex.A6: Original Paper Publication dated 28-06-2012 Ex.A7: Office copy of the Police Report dated 04-07-2012 Ex.A8: Original pattadar passbook Ex.A9: Title Deed Ex.A10: Served copy of the plaint in O.S.No.91/2012 on the file of IIIrd Addl.

District Judge Court, Kakinada

Ex.A11: Served copy of the Caveat dated 06-07-2012 Ex.A12: Mee-Seva Copy of 1-B Namuna Ex.A13: Mee-Seva copy of 1-B Namuna

For Defendant: ..Nil..

S/d M.Prameela Rani

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TUNI.

Plaint presented on 09-07-2012 and filed on 10-07-2012

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TUNI

PRESENT:KUM.M.PRAMEELA RANI,PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE Thursday, this the 26th day of April, 2018

Original Suit No.185/2012

Between: Gosala Thatarao, S/o China Appanna, Hindu, aged about 54 years, Cultivation, residing at D.No.4-135, Ankampeta, H/o Palteru, Payakaraopeta Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District. ..Plaintiff

And

Gosala Krishna, S/o Late China Appanna, Hindu, aged about 52 years, Business, residing at D.No.5-19-21, Muslim Street, Near Ryot Bazar, Tuni, East Godavari

District. ...Defendant

Suit to pass a decree infavour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for grant of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant, his men and servants from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit: Rs.10,000/- x 3 = Rs.30,000/-

A court fee of Rs.786/- x 3 = Rs.2358/- is paid under section 26 (c) of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act.

Cause of action for the purpose of this suit aroses on 13-12-1990 when the plaintiff purchased a part of the property in the name of his wife Bhanumathi and on 16-05-1994 when the remaining part of the schedule purchased by the plaintiff in his name and after the death of his wife Bhanumati and while the plaintiff enjoying the property with absolute right and title and subsequently when the government issued ryot pass book and title deed in his name and subsequently when the defendant purchased some lands on the side of the plaint schedule property on northern side and one part of southern side and he with a malicious intention to grab the plaint schedule property proclaimed to create some nominal documents by forging the signatures of the plaintiff and when the plaintiff gave a notice on 23-06-2012 and also a publication notice on 25-06-2012 and later the defendant while forging an agreement filed a suit on the file of III ADJ.Court, Kakinada in O.S.No.91/2012 and made a publication in Eenadu daily on 28-06-2012 and subsequently on 04-07-2012 when the defendant tried to trespass into the property by dispossessing the plaintiff and when the plaintiff gave a report to the police on the same day and on all other days, when the defendant is making attempting to trespass into the property with the help of his henchmen which are all within the jurisdiction of your Honourable Court at

Kavalapadu village, Tuni Mandal, where the property is situated and where the cause of action aroses.

This suit is coming on 24-04-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.V.V.Ramana, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri V.Apparao, Advocate for Defendant and the matter having stood for over consideration till today this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs.

2. That the defendant, his men and servants are hereby restrained from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.

3. That the defendant do pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.11,770/- towards the costs of the suit bearing his own costs of Rs.Nil

Schedule copy attached to decree.

Note: “The parties should apply, as soon as possible, for return of all exhibits which they which they wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order” Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this, the 26th day of April, 2018

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TUNI.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For plaintiff: For defendant:

Stamps on Vakalat Rs 2-00 Stamps on Plaint Rs. 2358-00 Stamps on Petition Rs 10-00 Stamps on Process Rs 200-00 Cost memo not filed. Advocate Fee Rs. 9000-00 Typing Charges Rs. 100-00 Writing Charges Rs. 100-00 ----------------- Total Costs Rs. 11770-00 -----------------

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TUNI.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISIO5N):: RAZOLE

PRESENT:Ms. M.PRAMEELA RANI

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Razole.

Wednesday, the 22nd day of April, 2026

H.M.O.P.No.37/2026

Between: 1. Gonamanda Sri Jyothi, W/o Matta Johnson, D/o Pullayya, Hindu,

Age: 33 years, Female, Hindu, resident of Tatipaka matam sivaru

Pedalanka, Razole mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District.

2. Matta Johnson, S/o Late John Peter, Hindu, Aged 35 Years, Male, resident of Gudimula village, Sakhinetipalli Mandal, Dr.B.R.

Ambedkar Konaseema District. … Petitioners

AND

Nil.… Respondent

This petition is coming on 17.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.D.Ram, Mohan Rao, Advocate for petitioners and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 13–B of Hindu Marriage

Act requesting this court to pass a decree of divorce between the petitioners by dissolving their marriage which was performed on 15.02.2025, by mutual consent and to grant such other relief or reliefs.

2

2. The brief averments of the petition are:

The 1st petitioner is the wife of the 2nd petitioner. Their marriage was performed on 15.02.2025 at the 2nd petitioners parent's house Gudimula, as per their caste customs in accordance with the ceremonies of Hindu Marriage Act in the presence of elders of both parties and relatives.

3.As per caste custom of the parties, nuptial function was arranged on the 3rd day of the marriage for which all the relatives of the 2nd petitioner were invited and they attended. After three days after the nuptials both the petitioners left to

Gudimula and lead marital life at the house of 2nd petitioner. During the said period some differences and misunderstandings arose between the petitioners and their families. In that context heated exchange of words went on between the petitioners and their families, which became the route cause to break up the marriage. Since then there are no marital relations between the parties and they have been residing at the respective places of abode. No issues were born to them.

4.Thereon both the petitioners family members placed the matter before the elders at Gudimula namely Talla Nagaraju, Kudupudi Ammaji, Sarella Vijay Prasad,

Jalem Srinu and others for which both the well wishers and relatives of both parties were present and tried to reunite them but both petitioners did not agree to live together and on the other hand they expressed that they would live separately apart from each other and they expressed their unwillingness to lead marital life in future and they would like to take divorce through Court of Law.

3

5.Since after nuptials ie.,19.02.2025 there is no marital relationship between the parties and they have been residing at their respective places of abode. The petitioners developed mutual dislike against each other and they could not comprehend their relationship and to live as husband and wife. The petitioners did not care the advice of elders and relations, inspite of intervention of elders and their best efforts to unite the petitioners. But the petitioners did not agree to live together.

6.On account of their mutual dislike, the matter is settled amicably between the petitioners before the elders and agreed to take divorce by way of mutual consent, as there is no possibility of reunion to lead matrimonial life.

7.The terms of the settlement are:

(1) The 2nd petitioner has to pay Rs.2,65,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs sixty five thousand only) towards permanent alimony and full and final settlement including all claims.

(2) Both the petitioners mutually agreed to exchange their Gold ornaments and other Gift articles vice versa.

(3) 1st petitioner returned the articles viz., Gold, silver, clothes and other customary gifts presented at the time of marriage to the 2nd petitioner and so also the 2nd petitioner returned the gifts to the 1st petitioner presented to him and there are no mutual claims whatsoever in nature in future against each other in respect of aforesaid articles. There are no moveables to be exchanged by the parties.

4 (4) There shall not be any claims whatsoever in nature in future by the 1st petitioner against the 2nd petitioner including permanent alimony etc., likewise the 2nd petitioner has no right to make any claims against the 1st petitioner in any form.

(5) Both the Petitioners further undertake that they will not file any cases, suits, claims in any manner in future against each other including their assets.

8.As per the settlement out of Rs. 2,65,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs sixty five thousand only) today i.e., 30.03.2026 the 2nd petitioner paid an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only). The remaining amount Rs. 1,65,000/- (Rupees One lakhs sixty five thousand only) will be paid at the time of giving evidence (granting divorce).

9.They voluntarily and consciously agreed to dissolve their marriage. There is no coercion or threat on the petitioners to file the above petition. There is no possibility for reconciliation between them to continue their marital life and the marriage between the petitioners is irretrievably broken down and hence the petitioners are obliged to file the petition seeking divorce by way of mutual consent.

There is no collusion between the petitioners in filing the present petition. Hence this petition.

10.This petition is presented before this court on 30.03.2026 and after registering the petition the petitioners were directed to appear before this court on 31.08.2026. On 17.04.2026, both the petitioners appeared along with their counsel 5 and filed a petition in I.A.No.310/2026 to advance the matter from 31.08.2026 to this day i.e.17.04.2026 and also filed a petition in I.A.No.311/2026 to waive the statutory waiting period of six months through affidavits. By considering the reasons assigned therein, submission made by the petitioners and by considering the observations given by Hon’ble Apex Court in “Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur reported in 2017(5) ALT 23 this court exercised its discretion and allowed the said petition and advanced the matter and waived the statutory period of 6 months. The parties adduced their evidence by filing their chief affidavits before this court stating that they have not withdrawn their consent.

11.The 1st Petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 and

P.2. The 2nd petitioner examined himself as PW.2.

12.Heard the counsel for the petitioners. Perused the record.

13.The point for consideration is:-

Whether the petitioners are entitled for dissolution of their marriage by

a decree of divorce by mutual consent, as prayed for ?

14. Point:

To prove their case, the 1st petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. The 2nd petitioner examined himself as PW.2. The evidence affidavits of PWs.1 and 2 shows that they have reiterated the petition averments in their evidence. On a perusal of Ex.P.1 Wedding Card, Ex.P.2 marriage photo of petitioners it proves that, their marriage was performed on 15.02.2025 at the 2nd 6 petitioner's parent’s house at Gudimula Village as per Hindu rites and caste customs. Hence Hindu Marriage Act is applicable to them.

15.Their chief evidence affidavits further shows that, after the nuptials some differences and misunderstandings arose between the petitioners and their families.

In that context heated exchange of words went on between the petitioners and their families, which became the route cause to break up the marriage. Since then there are no marital relations between the parties and they have been residing at the respective places of abode. No issues were born to them.

16.Thereon both the petitioners family members placed the matter before the elders at Gudimula namely Talla Nagaraju, Kudupudi Ammaji, Sarella Vijay Prasad,

Jalem Srinu and others for which both the well wishers and relatives of both parties were present and tried to reunite them but both petitioners did not agree to live together and on the other hand they expressed that they would live separately apart from each other and they expressed their unwillingness to lead marital life in future and they would like to take divorce through Court of Law.

17.The petitioners did not care the advice of elders and relations, inspite of intervention of elders and their best efforts to unite the petitioners. But the petitioners did not agree to live together. On account of their mutual dislike, the matter is settled amicably between the petitioners before the elders and agreed to 7 take divorce by way of mutual consent, as there is no possibility of reunion to lead matrimonial life.

18.The terms of the settlement are:

(1) The 2nd petitioner has to pay Rs.2,65,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs sixty five thousand only) towards permanent alimony and full and final settlement including all claims.

(2) Both the petitioners mutually agreed to exchange their Gold ornaments and other Gift articles vice versa.

(3) There shall not be any claims whatsoever in nature in future by the 1st petitioner against the 2nd petitioner including permanent alimony etc., likewise the 2nd petitioner has no right to make any claims against the 1st petitioner in any form.

(4) Both the Petitioners further undertake that they will not file any cases, suits, claims in any manner in future against each other including their assets.

19.According to the settlement the 2nd petitioner paid an amount of Rs.2,65,000/- to the 1st petitioner towards her permanent alimony. Accordingly the 1st petitioner also in her evidence agreed about receiving an amount of Rs.2,65,000/- from the 2nd petitioner towards her permanent alimony. Further as per the settlement the 1st petitioner returned the articles viz., Gold, silver, clothes and other customary gifts presented at the time of marriage to the 2nd petitioner and so also the 2nd petitioner returned the gifts to the 1st petitioner presented to him and there are no mutual 8 claims whatsoever in nature in future against each other in respect of aforesaid articles. There are no moveables to be exchanged by the parties.

20.From the above discussion it shows that the parties have settled all the terms between them to dissolve their marriage as per the terms agreed by them. Upon considering the entire record, this court is of the view that there is no possibility for resuming cohabitation by the parties, hence mutual divorce can be granted to the parties so that the parties can lead their life happily in their own way.

21.In the result, the petition is allowed. The marriage between the petitioners 1 and 2, held on 15.02.2025 is dissolved by granting decree of divorce by mutual consent.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 22 nd day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Ms.M.Prameela Rani,

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Razole.

A PPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For petitioners:

PW.1 : Gonamanda Sri Jyothi.

PW.2 : Matta Johnson.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioners:

Ex.P.1: The wedding card showing the 1st petitioner marriage fixed with the 2nd petitioner.

9

Ex.P.2: Marriage photo showing the 1st petitioner marriage performed with the 2nd petitioner.

Sd/- Ms.M.Prameela Rani,

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Razole. Note: “The parties should apply, as soon as possible, for return of all exhibits which they wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order”.

//TRUE COPY//