1
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
AT SATHUPALLY
Dated this the 05th day of December, 2025
Present:- Sri M.Srinivas VI Additional District Judge, Sathupally.
O.S.No. 26 of 2014
Between:
01.Yanamaddi Rajesh, S/o:Ramesh Babu, Age:32 years, Occ:Business,
02.Yanamaddi Venkatesh, S/o:Ramesh Babu, Age:30 years, Occ:Private employee,
03.Yanamaddi Satish, S/o:Ramesh Babu, Age:28 years, Occ:Private employee All are R/o: H.No.9-195, Dwarakapuri colony, Road No.4, Sathupally town and Mandal, Khammam district.
.....Plaintiffs
AND
01. Thotakura Kanakamma,W/o:Kotaiah, Age:53 years, Occ:House-wife,
02. Alapati (Thotakura) Ramadevi, W/o:Aravinda Kumar, Age:32 years, Occ:House-wife.
03. Thotakura Anantha Ramulu, S/o:Kotaiah, Age:30 years, Occ:Agriculture. All are R/o:Janakipuram village, Bonakal Mandal, Khammam district.
…..Defendants.
This suit came up before me for final hearing on 30.10.2025 in the presence of Sri K.Vijay Kumar (Senior), Advocate for the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3, Sri Sk.Himavali, Advocate for the Defendant Nos.1 to 3, upon perusal the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivered the following;
J U D G M E N T:: ::
1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 for the reliefs of declaration of title and consequential Perpetual Injunction over the 2 agricultural dry land admeasuring Ac.4-10 gts., in Sy.No.360 of
Janakipuram Grama Panchayat of Pedda Beeravalli village of Bonakal
Mandal, Khammam district (hereinafter in brief be referred as ‘item No.1 of the suit schedule property’), Agricultural dry land admeasuring Ac.2.04 gts., in Sy.No.479/A of Janakipuram Grama Panchayat of Pedda Beeravalli village of Bonakal Mandal, Khammam district (hereinafter in brief be referred as ‘item No.2 of the suit schedule property’), Agricultural dry land admeasuring Ac.2.04 gts., in Sy.No.479/A/A of Janakipuram Grama
Panchayat of Pedda Beervalli village of Bonakal Mandal of Khammam district (hereinafter in brief be referred as ‘item No.3 of the suit schedule property’), Agricultural wet land admeasuring Ac.1.30 gts., in
Sy.No.460/EE/1 of Janakipuram Grama Panchayat of Pedda Beeravalli village of Bonakal Mandal of Khammam district (hereinafter in brief be referred as ‘item No.4 of the suit schedule property’) and Agricultural wet land admeasuring Ac.1.10 gts., in Sy.No.448/A/3 of Janakipuram Grama
Panchayat of Pedda Beeravally village of Bonakal Mandal of Khamamm district (hereinafter in brief be referred as ‘Item No.5 of the suit schedule property’).
2.The brief averments of the plaint, are as follows:
i) That the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are natural brothers and sons of one
Ramesh Babu. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of defendant
No.1, who is elder sister to the father of plaintiffs.
ii)That the grand father of the plaintiffs namely Yanamaddi
Ramaiah, S/o:Laxminarsaiah during his life time executed a Will Deed
dt:18.06.1996, bequeathing the suit schedule properties in favour of the
3 plaintiffs and died on 16.03.2012. The said will deed was scribed by
Nagula Nageswara Rao and attested by Yanamaddi laxminarsaiah and
Yanamaddi Rangaiah. After the death of testator, the Will deed acted upon and came into force and thus the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 became owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. The testator has two male and one female children and he performed their marriages and gave some property to his daughter at the time of her marriage and that the testator remained in the custody of his elder son Ramesh Babu who is father of plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs looked after the welfare of the testator, who had hope that the plaintiffs would look after his welfare till his last breath, thereby he bequeathed the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiffs and thus by virtue of the will deed, the plaintiffs became owners and possessors of the suit schedule properties from 16.03.2012 and father of the plaintiffs performed last rites of the deceased testator.
iii) That the plaintiffs approached the revenue authorities to mutate their names in revenue records in pursuance of the Will Deed, but the revenue authorities did not comply their request and postponed from time to time on one pretext or the other and they had been to the Tahsildar office.
iv) That surprisingly the defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit in
O.S.No.54/2013 on the file of Addl. District Judge (Spl. Court for trial of
cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act) for perpetual injunction and obtained interim injunction order in I.A.No.398/2013 and consequently, they went to the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in CMA No.627/2013 which was adjudicated with a direction to maintain status-quo by both the parties 4 during the pendency of suit. The plaintiffs came to know that the defendants fraudulently entered their names in revenue records by mis-leading or influencing the revenue authorities. Under the above guise of entries of their names in revenue records, the defendants are intending to knock away the suit schedule property by depriving their legitimate claim, right and interest over the schedule properties, which is not tenanble under the law or transfer of property Act, 1988.
v) That the defendants instituted a suit for bare injunction despite the existence of a title dispute in respect of the suit-schedule properties, and that the defendants, with full knowledge, misled the court and obtained an injunction which is not maintainable. To protect their rights, the plaintiffs are constrained to seek declaration of title, as the dispute cannot otherwise be resolved. The plaintiffs reasonably believe that the documents relied upon by the defendants were procured fraudulently and that the revenue authorities, without conducting proper enquiry, manipulated the revenue records by entering the defendants’ names arbitrarily and in violation of the ROR Act.
vi) That the father of the plaintiffs namely Ramesh Babu, is the eldest son of Yanamaddi Ramaiah, whose father was Yanamaddi Laxminarasaiah.
The plaintiffs’ paternal grandfather, late Yanamaddi Ramaiah, had three sons, including the father of the plaintiffs, the defendant No.1 and
Yanamaddi Venkateswara Rao @ Venkataiah. The ancestral properties held by the paternal grand father amount to approximately Ac.14-35 gts in various survey numbers and Ac.1.00 gts., was devolved upon the grandmother of the plaintiffs namely Yanamaddi Sakkubayyamma, in total 5 they had Ac.15.35 gts., Title deeds and ROR passbooks were issued in favour of the plaintiffs’ grandparents accordingly.
vii) That on 1-6-2014, the plaintiffs received summons in O.S.No.54 of 2013 and upon verification of the case records, discovered that the defendants Nos.1 and 2, in conspiracy with certain revenue officials, fabricated ROR passbooks and title documents. It is alleged that the defendants removed the original pattadar’s photograph, substituted it with the photograph of defendant No.1, used chemical whitener to erase names and inserted the defendants’ names without authorization and that ROR title deed dated 12-12-1994 was manipulated by affixing the photograph of defendant No.2, who was aged below 13 years at that time, despite the land standing in the name of Yanamaddi Ramaiah and despite the original pattadar being alive until 13-1-1996. The plaintiffs assert that an unregistered gift deed said to have been executed in favour of defendant
No.2, is fabricated by using scanned signatures of Yanamaddi Ramaiah and that the N.J. stamp used therein was purchased for unrelated personal use by one Thotakura Kotaiah.
viii) That the plaintiffs further submit that the defendants, through tampering, obtained mutation entries and confirmation register endorsements without the signatures or approval of competent authorities.
A white-paper sada sale deed produced by the defendants is alleged to be fabricated and contrary to the registered sale deed dated 31-03-2006 said to be in favour of plaintiff No.2.
ix) That the ROR passbook bearing No.157398, which belongs to one
Totakura Rambayamma, was falsely shown by the defendants as belonging 6 to the defendant No.2. The plaintiffs’ family members, upon obtaining ROR proceedings through RTI, discovered that the land inherited by their grandmother Yanamaddi Sakkubayyamma had been altered by removing her photograph and replacing it with that of the defendant No.1 and by erasing her name and rewriting the name of the defendant No.1 without any justification.
x) That defendant No.3, with the assistance of revenue officials, removed the photograph of the plaintiffs’ grand father from the ROR title deed dated 12-12-1994, affixed his own photograph, used chemical whitener to erase the original name and inserted the name of Thotakura
Anantharamulu, despite the fact that the defendant No.3 was aged below 12 years at the time. The photograph appearing therein, however, depicts an adult male with mustache, which is inconsistent with the defendant
No.3’s age. Similar inconsistencies appear between the confirmation register and ROR title deed.
xi) That the plaintiffs assert that the defendants, in collusion with the revenue officials, indulged in extensive tampering, fabrication of documents, substitution of photographs, erasure of entries and manipulation of land records with the objective of unlawfully claiming ownership of the plaintiffs’ ancestral properties. The plaintiffs therefore seek appropriate reliefs from the court. With the above pleadings, the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 prayed the court to pass a judgment and decree in their favour and against the defendant Nos.1 to 3, their relatives, agents or any other persons claiming through them from interfering with their peaceful 7 possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties and also to award costs of the suit.
3.The defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed their common written statement, which was signed by the defendant No.3 on all pages and in the last page, all the defendant Nos.1 to 3 signed therein. In their written statement, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 denied the allegations made in the plaint and interalia submitted that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit vide O.S.No.54/2013 on the file of Addl. District Judge (Spl. Court for trial of cases under
Scs/Sts (POA) Act) for perpetual injunction and obtained interim injunction vide I.A.No.398/2013. The plaintiffs have no right to file the suit and thereby no cause of action.
ii) That the item No.1 of the suit schedule property belongs to defendant No.2, purchased by her father on her name on 31.03.1996 from one Thotakura Rambayamma who is close relative of defendants, by an agreement of sale and since then, the defendant No.2 has been in possession and ownership of the same, the revenue authorities issued ROR
Passbook in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property, as such, the plaintiffs have nothing to do with the same.
iii) That the father of defendant Nos.2 and 3 who is husband of defendant No.1, purchased the item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties from one Yanamaddi Ramaiah, grand father of plaintiffs, defendant Nos.2 and 3 and father of defendant No.1 by an agreement of sale dt:15.05.1990 for a consideration of Rs.25,000/- per acre, which was signed by the father of plaintiffs and their uncle i.e., father’s brother
Venkateswara Rao. Since 1990 onwards, the item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit 8 schedule properties had been in the name of father of defendant Nos.2 and 3 till 1994 and later in the oral partition, the same was fallen to share of defendant No.3 and since 1994 onwards, the name of defendant No.3 appeared in the pahani in respect of item Nos.2 and 3 and that the defendant No.3 had been issued ROR pass book and title deed by the revenue authorities, as such, the plaintiffs have nothing to do with the suit schedule properties.
iv) That with regard to the item No.4 of the suit schedule property, originally it belongs to grand father of the plaintiffs, defendant Nos.2 and 3 i.e., father of defendant No.1 and the same was gifted in favour of defendant No..1 by him vide un-registered gift deed dt:17.05.1990 and the same was also signed by father of plaintiffs and his younger brother
Venkateswara Rao@ Venkataiah i.e. brothers of defendant No.1 and already name of defendant No.1 appeared in the revenue records and already ROR pass book and title deed were issued in favour of the defendant No.1 and thus the defendant No.1 has been in possession, enjoyment and ownership of item No.4 of suit schedule property and the plaintiffs have nothing to do with the said property.
v)That with regard to item No.5 of the suit schedule property, which was purchased by father of defendant No.2 on her name on 25.05.1984 while she was minor by then and thereafter the defendant No.2 has been in peaceful possession, enjoyment and ownership thereon and thereafter the revenue authorities issued ROR and title deeds in favour of the defendant No.2 and that the defendant No.2 has been in possession and 9 enjoyment of the same and that the plaintiffs have nothing to do with the said property.
vi) That late Yanamaddi Ramaiah, grandfather of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3, had two sons, the defendant No.1 namely Ramesh and Yanamaddi Venkateswara Rao and one daughter/defendant No.1. The said Ramaiah effected an oral partition in the year 1990 among his sons and himself, under which a share was allotted to the plaintiffs’ father which was looked after by late Ramaiah, who later purchased nearly 12 acres of land in favour of the father of the plaintiffs, while the younger son
Venkataiah obtained only 13 acres. The plaintiffs’ father, though a beneficiary of Ramaiah’s efforts, shown no gratitude, ill-treated his parents and drove them away from the ancestral house, forcing Ramaiah to reside with the defendant No.1 and her husband Kotaiah. The plaintiffs’ father and plaintiffs developed greediness and jealousy towards the defendant
Nos.1 to 3 and attempted to interfere with their peaceful possession of their lands, compelling the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to file a suit vide O.S.No.
54/2013 and I.A. No.398/2013 on the file of the Addl. District Judge (Spl.
Court for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act) wherein an interim injunction was granted, later confirmed in C.M.A.No. 627/2013 by the
Hon’ble High Court, directing the parties to maintain status-quo during the
pendency of suit.
vii)The alleged will deed set up by the plaintiffs is fabricated, as there was no necessity for late Ramaiah to execute any will deed and the purported attesting witness Yanamaddi Laxminarasaiah died on 14-01-1996 and therefore could not have attested a will allegedly executed on 10 18.06.1996, even the signature of Yanamaddi Rangaiah is forged as he died within 10 days of Ramaiah’s death. The plaintiffs never approached any authority regarding the alleged will until after filing the suit, which casts further doubt on its genuineness. Hence the plaintiffs' plea regarding the will deed is false and concocted and the suit filed by them for declaration and perpetual injunction is not maintainable and they are not entitled to any relief whatsoever. At the end, the defendants prayed the court to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs with exemplary costs.
4.This suit was originally filed in the court of Hon’ble Prl. District
Judge, Khammam and the same was made over to the court of Addl.
District Judge (Spl. Court for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act) and
at the stage of trial, this suit was transferred to this court on the point of jurisdiction, for disposal according to law.
5.Basing on the above pleadings of both parties and on hearing the learned counsels appearing on both sides, the following issues were settled for trial:
1. Whether the Will deed dt:18.06.1996 executed by Yanamaddi Ramaiah in favour of the plaintiffs, is true and valid?
2. Whether the plaintiffs have got title and possession over the plaint schedule properties?
3. Whether the defendants interfered with the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties prior to filing of the suit and plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?
4. Whether the defendants have got title over the suit schedule properties as pleaded by them?
5. Whether the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties as pleaded by them?
6. To what relief?
11
6.To substantiate their claim, the Pws.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and Exs.A1 to A51 were marked on their behalf as documentary evidence. Out of the said documents, though no document was marked as Ex.A2, but inadvertently, the then Presiding Officer of this court shown the marking of Ex.A2, but in-fact, no document was marked under Ex.A2 and with the consent of both side counsels, the Ex.A2 is treated as ‘nil’ document. In rebuttal, Dws.1 to 4 were examined and
Exs.B1 to B.47 were marked on behalf of the defendants. Out of the Dws.1 to 4, the chief examination affidavit of D.W2 was eschewed on 29.11.2024, since she remained absent and the learned counsel for the defendants requested this court to eschew the same and accordingly, the chief examination of Dw.2 was eschewed.
7.Heard the vehement and lengthy arguments of the learned counsels appearing for both parties and perused the material on record.
ISSUE NO.1:
“Whether the Will deed dt.18.06.1996 executed by Yanamaddi Ramaiah in favour of the plaintiffs is true and valid?”
8.It is the specific claim of the plaintiffs that their grand father namely
Yanamaddi Ramaiah executed a will deed dt:18.06.1996, bequeathing the item Nos.1 to 5 of the suit schedule properties in their favour and that after the death of testator on 16.03.2012, the will deed came into force and thereby the plaintiffs became owners and possessors of the said properties.
So the claim of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties is said to be derived from the will deed, which is disputed by the defendants, stating that long prior to the execution of the alleged will deed, the defendants 12 became the owners and possessors of the suit schedule properties and thus the said Yanamaddi Ramaiah has no right or interest to bequeath those properties to the plaintiffs and further contended that the alleged will deed is a created document to knock way the suit schedule properties from the defendants. Thus since there is a serious dispute with regard to the validity of the will deed, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove the said will deed by adducing convincing oral and documentary evidence.
9.As per Sec.68 of Indian Evidence Act, the will deed is to be proved by examining atleast one attesting witness of it. In a Judgment reported in
Lalithaben Jayanthi Lal Popet Vs. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria (2009 (1)
SCJ 929 = AIR 2009 SC 1389, wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, as follows:
“Proof of a valid will. Held, it has to be proved not only by proving the signature of the executor, but it should be found to be free from any suspicious circumstances”.
In another judgment reported in K.Laxmanan Vs. Thekkayal Padmini 2009 (2) SCJ 90 = AIR 2009 SC 951, wherein it was held by the Hon’ble
Apex Court, as under:
“Proof of legality of execution and genuineness of Will- propounder has to prove the legality of the execution and genuineness of the will by explaining the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the will and also by proving the testamentary capacity and signature of the testator.”
In one more Judgment reported in Ramesh Verma (died) through
L.Rs., Vs Lajesh Saxena (died) by Legal representatives and another (2017 (5) SCJ 36 = AIR 2017 SC 494), wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Apex 13
Court that the will has to be proved in consonance with the mandate of
Sec.68 of the Evidence Act irrespective of absence of specific denial by the opposite party.
A plain reading of the ratio decided in the afore-cited judgments, it can be understood that the profounder of the will who is relying on the will deed is under obligation to prove, not only the execution of the will deed, but also the genuineness of the will explaining the absence of suspicious surroundings of the will, the testamentary capacity and signature of the testator, whether the other party denied it or not and that the profounder has to prove the will deed in consonance with the mandate of
Sec.68 of the Evidence Act. So, it is just and proper to peruse the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs as to whether they are able to prove the will deed through the evidence adduced on their behalf, by examining atleast one attesting witness. The alleged will deed was marked as Ex.A1.
10.On perusal of the Ex.A1, it is noticed that there are two attestors, who attested the will deed namely Yanamaddi Laxmi Narsaiah and
Yanamaddi Rangaiah. It is observed that nowhere in the plaint pleadings, the plaintiffs could able to mention that both the attestors of the will deed namely Yanamaddi Lakshmi Narsaiah and Yanamaddi Rangaiah died.
However, for the first time, in the evidence of plaintiff No.2, who was examined as Pw.1, it is mentioned in his chief-examination that both the attestors of the will deed are no more and that only the scribe of the will deed namely Nagula Nageshwar Rao is alive. Due to death of both the attesting witnesses of the will deed, proving the will deed as mandated under Sec.68 of the Indian Evidence Act, is not possible. In such case, the 14 plaintiffs have to resort to Sec.69 of the Evidence Act, which reads as follows:
Proof where no attesting witness found:-
If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness atleast is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the hand writing of that person.
A plain reading of the contents of Sec.69 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is learnt that when atleast one attesting witness is not found, it must be proved by examining a person who is acquainted with the signature of the either testator or attesting witness. In this particular case, though it is revealed that the family members of both attestors on the will deed are said to be alive, but the plaintiffs did not choose to examine any of those family members to prove that the signatures of the attestors belong to the said attestors only, in accordance with the Sec.69 of the Indian Evidence
Act.
11.On the other hand, the plaintiffs examined the scribe of the will deed as Pw.2, who in-turn deposed in his chief-examination that, in the year 1993 he scribed the will deed as dictated by the testator Yanamaddi
Ramaiah and again in the year 1996, he scribed another will deed on the dictation of Yanamaddi Ramaiah and the testator signed as executant and two other persons who are relatives of Ramaiah who came along with him, signed as attestors to the will deed of the year 1996 in his presence and he also signed as scribe of the document. Though the Pw.2 deposed in his evidence that the testator as well as attestors put their signatures on the 15 will deed/Ex.A.1, but he did not specifically state that he identified the signatures of the either testator or attestors, since he is not their family member. Further, the Pw.2 did not disclose in his evidence, the names of two attestors of the will deed, but he simply identified his writings and his signature only on the will deed. However, for proving his hand-writing, he did not produce into court, any document scribed by him, for the purpose of comparison of his hand writing on the Ex.A1.
12.It is an admitted fact that, as per the chief-examination of Pw.2, he scribed two will deeds as dictated by the testator Yanamaddi Ramaiah, one is in the year 1993 and another is in the year 1996. However, though the second will deed is said to be filed into court through the chief- examination affidavit of Pw.1 and shown it as marked, but such earlier will deed dt:05.04.1993 was actually neither filed into court, nor marked as exhibit and so far the said document has not seen the light of the day.
13.With regard to the will deed/Ex.A1, the Pw.2 admitted several aspects contrary to the case of the plaintiffs. To prove that the writings in Ex.A1 belong to the Pw.2 only, it is just and proper to produce any other document scribed by him during the course of his occupation as a document writer. But when a specific question was posed to the Pw2 about producing any document scribed by him in his hand writing, the Pw2 stated in the very first line of his cross-examination that, he did not bring any document, which was scribed by him, to prove his writings on ExA1.
Resultantly, it can be inferred that the plaintiffs are unable to prove the writings in ExA.1 as belongs to Pw.2 only, due to non-producing of any document scribed by him for comparison.
16
14.Generally, whenever a document is prepared by a document writer, he would leave sufficient space on both sides of left and right margins of the document. But interestingly, the Pw.2 says in his cross-examination that he did not leave much space for margins while scribing the documents on stamp papers and that whenever the contents of documents are more to be scribed on a single stamp paper, he did not leave much space for left and right margins and whereas when there are more stamp papers available for scribing the contents of a document, he used to leave sufficient margin space on left and right sides.
15.It is a common practice that whenever a single non-judicial stamp is brought for scribing a document and when the matter is more than the space available on the stamp paper, an additional plain sheet will be annexed to the stamp paper and continue the contents of document on such paper, or else, an extra stamp paper will be taken for that purpose. But in this peculiar case, the Pw2 scribed the contents on Ex.A1 in a very congested manner, without leaving any space for left and right margins and in a very small font size, though there is sufficient space available on the stamp, for the reasons best known to him. If the version of the Pw2 that he is not in the habit of leaving much space for margins on left and right sides on a stamp paper while scribing the document, he has to continue the writing till the end of stamp paper. However, surprisingly when the
Ex.A1 is perused, the matter therein was congestedly adjusted upto 3/4th of the stamp paper and left most of the space underneath the signature of the executant, which gives rise to a suspicion.
17
16.Writing the contents of Ex.A1 in a congested manner, till 3/4th of the stamp paper only in a small font size and leaving much space underneath the signature of the executant, a prudent man can say on the face of the document that the said document was prepared on the already signed stamp paper by adjusting the matter on the stamp paper, above the signature of the executant only, so that much space was remained left underneath the signature. Moreover, the Pw.2 specifically admitted in his cross-examination that, on the directions of his father-in-law namely
Cheepu Chennaiah/document writer, firstly he prepared a draft of the contents of Ex.A1 and basing on the said draft only, he scribed the Ex.A1.
If that be the case and when the Pw.2 prepared a draft prior to scribing the Ex.A1 on a single stamp, he was at liberty to continue the contents till the end of the stamp paper, by leaving space for signature of the executant, as well as the attestors and scribe. But in this peculiar case, though the Pw.2 prepared a prior draft for executing the Ex.A1, but he wrote the contents in a very small font size, upto 3/4th of the stamp paper only, which gives rise to another suspicion that he adjusted the contents of document on the already signed stamp paper.
17.It is a general practice that while preparing the documents pertaining to any immovable property, the schedule of the property will be mentioned separately at the bottom of the document. But surprisingly, the Pw.2 who has been preparing documents since the year 1984 said that, there is no hard and fast rule that the schedule of the property is to be shown distinctly at the bottom, but it can also be described in the running matter.
Apparently, there is sufficient space on the stamp paper in Ex.A1 18 underneath the signature of the executant and there was no necessity to obtain the signature of the executant without mentioning the schedule of the properties at the bottom of the document. In those circumstances, mentioning the schedule in the running matter would only possible in case of scribing the said document on an already signed stamp paper only.
18.The another interesting point to be noted here is that, the Pw.2 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the executant of the
Ex.A1, brought the stamp paper from Madhira and handed over it to the
Pw.2 for scribing. Admittedly, the executant of Ex.A1 namely Yanamaddi
Ramaiah is resident of Janakipuram village of Bonakal Mandal, which is near and accessible to Madhira and Khammam, whereas Sathupally is situated at a long distance when compared to Madhira and Khammam. It is an un-disputed fact that there are stamp vendors as well as Sub-Registrar
Offices at Madhira, Kalluru and Khammam and that the Janakipuram village, where the executant resided, is comparatively near to these three places and whereas the Sathupally is situated at a long distance. Inspite of much availability of N.J.stamps, stamp vendors and document writers at all the places at Madhira, Khammam and Kalluru, it cannot be understood as to why the executant all the way traveled to a long distance to Sathupally, by leaving those three places and got prepared the Ex.A1 through the Pw.2 at Sathupally.
19.The contention of the defendants at this juncture is that, the father of the plaintiffs namely Yanamaddi Ramesh Babu who is a Singareni employee, is a greedy person, who obtained the signatures of his father
Yanamaddi Ramaiah/executant on blank stamp papers, during his life time, 19 necked out his parents from his house and after demise of the alleged executant Ramaiah in the year 2012, not satisfied with the lands secured by him during the partition with his brother and father, started claiming the lands of his sister/defendant No.1 and her children/defendant Nos.2 and 3 and due to such unbearable harassment of the father of the plaintiffs, they filed a suit vide O.S.No.54/2013 on the file of Addl. District Judge (Special court for trial of cases under the S.Cs/S.Ts (POA) Act), Khammam for perpetual injunction and soon-after receipt of summons and notices in the said suit in the year 2014, the father of the plaintiffs namely
Yanamaddi Ramesh Babu got prepared the Ex.A1 on an already signed stamp paper, in collusion with the Pw.2 and fabricated such will deed, as a counter blast to the suit filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 herein, since he was doing his job in Singareni Collories and residing at Sathupally and for that reason only, the ExA.1 was scribed by Pw.2 at Sathupally and if at all, the said Yanamaddi Ramaiah was really intended to execute a will deed while he was alive and residing in Janakipuram(V) of Bonakal
Mandal, he could have executed the same either at Madhira or Khammam or Kalluru, which are the nearest places to his village, but not at
Sathupally.
20.The further contention of the defendants is that not, only the Will
Deed under Ex..1 dt:18.06.1996, the father of the plaintiff also got created another will deed dt:05.04.1993 and started litigation claiming the suit schedule properties belonging to the defendants. As discussed earlier, the previous will deed dt:05.04.1993 allegedly executed by Yanamaddi Ramaiah in favour of the same plaintiffs, was not at all filed into the court for 20 exhibiting the same, except mentioning in the chief-affidavit of the Pw.1.
In view of the congested writings in a small font size upto 3/4th of the stamp paper and preparing the Ex.A2 at Sathupally after receipt of summons and notices in the suit filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and in the light of the peculiar and mitigating circumstances discussed above pertaining to the Ex.A1, the aforesaid contentions of the defendants appear to be believable.
21.Reverting to the evidence of Pw.2 pertaining to the Ex.A1, he categorically admitted in his cross-examination that after scribing the
Ex.A1, two witnesses who were proposed by the executant of the Ex.A1, signed on it and that he mentioned the names of such two attestors, in his chief-examination affidavit. But on perusal of the entire chief-examination affidavit of Pw.2, no such names of attestors are found. It is interesting to note here that, at several places in his cross-examination, the Pw2 mentioned as ‘executants’, though there is only one executant of Ex.A1 namely Yanamaddi Ramaiah. In view of the above discussion, the evidence of P.W.2 does not inspire any confidence of the court pertaining to the scribing of Ex.A1.
22.Coming to the evidence of Pw.3, who is the father of the plaintiffs namely, Yanamaddi Ramesh Babu, it is stated by him in his chief- examination that, his father Yanamaddi Ramaiah executed a Will deed in favour of the plaintiffs. But his chief-examination is silent as to on which date, his father executed the will deed and which of the properties were bequeathed by him to the plaintiffs through the said will deed. Similarly, the plaint pleadings and Ex.A20/death certificate revealed that his father 21
Yanamaddi Ramaiah died on 16.03.2012. Per contra, the Pw.3 in para No.2 of his chief-examination itself, testified on oath that his father died on 16.02.2012. So the very Pw.3, who is the son of Yanamaddi Ramaiah is not specific with regard to the date of death of his father Ramaiah. During the cross-examination, the Pw.3 admitted that their contention in
O.S.No.54/2013 is that, his sons/plaintiffs acquired the suit schedule
properties through Ex.A1 and that they also filed another will ceed, which is pertaining to the year 1993 i.e., dt:05.04.1993. But immediately, he admitted that the same is not exhibited in this suit as well as in the previous suit in O.S.No.54/2013 and the reason for not marking the said will deed as exhibit is, his counsel advised him that the said document is not necessary. He further admitted in page No.3 of his cross-examination that, the ages of the plaintiffs were not shown in Ex.A1 and also their occupations and that as on the date of execution of the Ex.A1, all the plaintiffs are minors and they are under study. He further admitted in page
No.4 of his cross-examination that, as per the ages of plaintiffs shown in the plaint, the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are 12 years, 10 years and 8 years of age respectively by the year of executing Ex.A1 in the year 1996. In those circumstances, when the plaintiffs are admittedly minors being the 12, 10 and 8 years respectively by the time of execution of Ex.A1, the contention of the plaintiffs in the averments of the plaint that their father as well as the plaintiffs looked after their grand father/Yanamaddi Ramaiah in his ending days, so that the said Ramaiah got confidence that the plaintiffs would look after him well in future till his last breath and accordingly executed the will deed in their favour bequeathing the item Nos.1 to 5 of 22 the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiffs etc., appears to be not believable.
23.Further, the Pw.1 admitted in his cross-examination that, the scribe of Ex.A1 namely Nagula Nageswara Rao is resident of Sathupally and that from the year 2006 onwards, the Pw.3 resided at Sathupally till his retirement in the year 2016. As discussed earlier, the contention of the defendants is that, the father of plaintiffs namely Yanamaddi Ramesh Babu obtained the signatures of his father/Yanamaddi Ramaiah during his life time on blank stamp papers and after filing the suit by the defendants No.1 and 2 against him and his sons/plaintiffs vide O.S.No.54/2013, he fabricated the Ex.A1, by creating the will deed on the signed stamp paper at Sathupally etc., seems to be believable. As that of the Pws.1 and 2, this witness/P.W.3 also categorically admitted that both the attestors on Ex.A1 are dead. In the above said manner, the evidence of Pw.3 is also not in a convincing manner pertaining to the alleged will deed/Ex.A1.
24.It is reiterated that the specific contention of the plaintiffs is that, by virtue of will deed/Ex.A.1, the plaintiffs acquired the item Nos.1 to 5 of the suit schedule properties belong to their grand father/Yanamaddi
Ramaiah. As discussed supra, it is an admitted fact that the earlier will deed dt:05.04.1993 was not filed and exhibited in court and it has not seen the light of the day so far. As seen from the Ex.A1, the grand father of the plaintiffs executed the said document in favour of the plaintiffs, but all the revenue records filed by both sides clearly disclose the names of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 in respect of the item Nos.1 to 5 of the suit schedule properties, even prior to the execution of the will deed. According to 23
Sec.2(h) of the Indian Succession Act, the essential requirements for proving a will are, there must be a legal declaration of testator’s intention that declaration must be with respect to his property and the desire of the testator that the said declaration should be effected after his death. As discussed earlier, there are two provisions of law laid down the requirements of proof of a will, one is Sec.68 of the Indian Evidence Act and another is Sec.63 of the Indian Succession Act. As per Sec.63(1) of the
Indian Succession Act, the foremost requirement for proving a will is that, the testator must sign or affix his mark to the will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and under his direction. Similarly, according to Sec.63(b) of the Indian Succession Act, the signature or mark of the testator shall be so placed that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing of a will. Usually the testator signs at the end of the entire body writing of the will to signify that he intends to give effect to the writing. When the ingredients of both Sec.63 of Indian Succession Act and
Sec.68 of the Evidence Act, the will shall be attested by two or more attestors, each of whom has seen the testator to sign or affix his mark to the will or received personal knowledge that he signed. Each of the witnesses must sign in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time. Both the testamentary capacity and execution of the will deed have to be independently proved by the person who profounds the will and the same was so decided in a case reported in M.Dhana Lakshmi Vs. K.R.Sharadamba reported in AIR 1977 AP 348. Further, when no attesting witness is found or they are dead and cannot be traced, the procedure laid down in Sec.69 24 of the Evidence Act has to be followed. Similarly,under Sec.69 of the
Evidence Act, the signature of the executant and the signature of atleast one attestor should be proved and that too, such signatures shall be proved as laid down under Sec.67 of the Evidence Act. When the attesting witness turns hostile and denies the execution of the will deed or does not remember, then under Sec.71 of the Evidence Act, the execution of the will can be proved by the other evidence. The phrase “by other evidence” means by other modes of proving the hand writing and the signature as laid down in Sec.67 of the Evidence Act. It is an un-disputed fact that both the attestors on Ex.A1 are no more and their family members were not examined.
25.It is to be noted here that the profounder of the will must clear all the suspicious circumstances under which it was executed. On careful perusal of the Ex.A1, it is noticed that the signature of the testator was obtained at the 3/4th size of the stamp paper and it appears to be lightly shaded, whereas the hand writing portion in Ex.A1, appears to be un-shaded, which creates a doubt as to the difference in the ink and shading of the signature of the testator, without shading of the hand writing text of Ex.A1. Further, on perusal of evidence of scribe/Pw.2, there are nearly 7 to 8 persons present excluding the executant, the scribe and his father-in-law, but only two persons chosen by the executant to sign on it. As discussed earlier, two attestors on the Ex.A.1 are no more. In those circumstances, steps have to be taken by the plaintiffs herein to send the disputed will deed/Ex.A.1 to an expert to compare the same with the standard signatures of the testator. But in this case, the plaintiffs failed to 25 take such steps. In the light of the above detailed discussion in the foregoing paras, this court is of the considered view that the plaintiffs failed to prove the will deed under Ex.A1 and thus, it can be concluded that the Ex.A.1/will deed dt.18.06.196 allegedly executed by Yanamaddi
Ramaiah in favour of the plaintiffs is not true and valid. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly, against the plaintiffs.
ISSUE Nos.2 AND 5:
2. Whether the plaintiffs have got title and possession over the plaint schedule properties?
5. Whether the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties as pleaded by them?
26.Since the issue Nos.2 and 5 are interconnected with each other and to avoid repetition, these two issues are grouped together to give the finding. It is the specific contention of the plaintiffs that, they got title over the plaint schedule properties through the Ex.A1/will deed executed by their grand father Yanamaddi Ramaiah. While deciding the issue No.1, this court came to conclusion that the said will deed/Ex.A1 is not true and valid. In view of the deciding the issue No.1 against the plaintiffs that the will deed relied upon by them is not true and valid, the plaintiffs who pleaded that they got title only through the Ex.A1, cannot get any title and the consequential possession over the suit schedule properties. Moreover, the Pw.1 who was examined on behalf of the other plaintiffs specifically admitted in his cross-examination that he did not file any documents to show that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule properties, as on the date of the filing of this suit. He further admitted that the names of 26 the defendants No.1 to 3 are found in the possession columns of pahanies/
Exs.A5 to A19, which means the defendants are only in possession of the suit schedule properties as on the date of filing the suit. Further, the documents exhibited on behalf of the plaintiffs under Exs.A5 to A19, A24,
A25, A48 as well as Exs.B1 to B19, B21 to B47 filed on behalf of the defendants which contain the names of the defendants, clinchingly prove that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule properties and on the other hand, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties as on the date of filing the suit. Further, in the judgment in the earlier suit in O.S.No.54/2013 which was marked as
Ex.B46, this court gave its finding that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 herein who are the plaintiffs in the previous suit vide O.S.No.54/2013 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and that the present plaintiffs herein and their father Yanamaddi Ramesh Babu interfered into the possession and enjoyment of the defendants herein over the suit schedule properties and thereby granted a perpetual injunction against the plaintiffs herein, restraining them perpetually from interfering into the suit schedule properties. The said judgment is still in vogue and not set aside so far. Though the plaintiffs herein deposed in their evidence that they preferred an appeal against the said judgment in O.S.No.54/2013 in the
Hon’ble High Court, but so far no result came out, adverse to the said
judgment. Therefore, since it was already decided by this court with an elaborate discussion in the earlier judgment in O.S.No.54/2013 that the plaintiffs herein are not in possession of the suit schedule properties and further, the very Pw.1 categorically admitted that the plaintiffs herein are 27 not at all in possession of the suit schedule properties and on the other hand, the names of the defendants are appearing in the documents filed even by the plaintiffs and therefore, this court is of the considered view that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule properties. For the above said reasons only and in view of specific admissions of P.W.1 about their non-possession over the suit schedule properties, this court has not gone into depth of the documents exhibited on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Accordingly, the issue No.2 is decided against the plaintiffs, whereas the issue No.5 is decided in favour of the defendants.
ISSUE No.3:
Whether the defendants interfered with the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties prior to filing of the suit and plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?
27.It is reiterated that on behalf of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.2 who was examined as Pw.1 categorically admitted in his cross examination that, he did not file any documents into court to show that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule properties as on the date of the filing the suit and on the other hand, the pahanies filed by the plaintiffs under
Exs.A5 to A19, the names of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are found in possession columns. If that be the case and when the very plaintiffs are not at all in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties as on the date of the filing of the suit, the question of interference into the same by the defendants does not arise at all. Consequently, the issue No.3 is decided that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule properties prior to filing of the suit and the defendants never interfered 28 into the same and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for. The issue No.3 is answered accordingly against the plaintiffs.
ISSUE No.4:
Whether the defendants have got title over the suit schedule properties as pleaded by them?
28.The present suit is filed by the plaintiffs claiming that they got possession and title over the suit schedule properties by virtue of will deed and that the defendants interfered into their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties and as such, the plaintiffs sought the reliefs of declaration of title and perpetual injunction and accordingly the plaintiffs valued the suit for the said reliefs and paid the court fee thereon under
Sec.24(b) of APCF and SV Act. Admittedly, the defendants though contested the suit rebutting the claim of the plaintiffs, but they did not file any counter-claim in this suit, claiming declaration of their title over the suit schedule properties. In those circumstances and when the defendants did not specifically claim the relief of title over the suit schedule properties in this suit and further not filed any counter-claim seeking the relief of declaration and not paid any court fee by valuing such relief, framing of this issue that whether the defendants have got title over the suit schedule properties as pleaded by them, is an absurd issue and not tenable at all in the eye of law. For that reason only, this court has not gone into the depth of the oral evidence of Dws.1 to 4 and documentary evidence of Exs.B1 to
B47 filed by the defendants, to decide the title of the defendants over the suit schedule properties. As such, this court finds no necessity to decide the 29 issue No.4 that whether the defendants got title over the suit schedule properties. The issue No.4 is answered accordingly.
CONCLUSION:
29.Therefore, in view of the above detailed discussion in the foregoing paras on different aspects, on close scrutiny of the entire evidence of both side witnesses, exhibits marked on behalf of both parties and basing on the other material available on record, this court is of the considered view that the plaintiffs failed to prove the will deed dt:18.06.1996 and that they got no title and possession over the suit schedule properties and on the other hand, as it was already decided in the earlier suit vide O.S.No.54/2013 that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and accordingly granted perpetual injunction in such suit, as such it can be finally concluded that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any of the reliefs, as prayed for. Accordingly, the present suit filed by the plaintiffs fails and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.
ISSUE No.6:
To what relief?
30.IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed. But in view of their relationship, both parties shall bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-I, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced
by me in the open court on this the 05th day of December, 2025.
VI ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,
SATHUPALLY.
30 ::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR P LAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS
P.W-1:Yanamaddi Venkatesh.D.W.1. Thotakura Anantha Ramulu
P.W-2:Nagula Nageswara RaoD.W.2. Thotakura Kanakamma (eschewed)
P.W-3:Yanamaddi Ramesh BabuD.W.3. Yanamaddi Venkateswar Rao
D.W.4. Thotakura Rama Devi.
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS
Ex.A1:Original Will Deed dt:18.06.1996 executed by Yanamaddi Ramaiah in favour of plaintiffs. Ex.A2:(No document was marked, treated as nil).
Ex.A3:Certified copy of Registered sale deed No.874/1985
dt:06.06.1985.
Ex.A4:Certified copy of Registered sale deed No.875/1985
dt:06.06.1985.
Ex.A5Certified copy of pahani pertaining to the year 1989-90.
Ex.A6Certified copy of pahani pertaining to the year 1990-91.
Ex.A7Certified copy of pahani pertaining to the year 1991-92.
Ex.A8Certified copy of pahani pertaining to the year 1992-93.
Ex.A9.Certified copy of pahani pertaining to the year 1993-94.
Ex.A10.Certified copy of pahani pertaining to the year 1994-95.
Ex.A11.Certified copy of pahani pertaining to the year 1995-96.
Ex.A12.Certified copy of pahani pertaining to the year 1996-97.
Ex.A13.Certified copy of pahani pertaining to the year 1997-98.
Ex.A14.Certified copy of pahani pertaining to the year 1998-99.
Ex.A15.Certified copy of pahani pertaining to the year 1998-99.
Ex.A16.Certified copy of pahani pertaining to the year 1999-00.
Ex.A17.Certified copy of pahani pertaining to the year 2000-01.
31
Ex.A18.Certified copy of pahani pertaining to the year 2002-03.
Ex.A19.Certified copy of pahani pertaining to the year 2005-06.
Ex.A20.Death certificate of Yanamaddi Ramaiah issued by Panchayat Secretary, G.P. Janakipuram dt:22.04.2012. Ex.A21.Death Certificate of Yanamaddi Lakshminarsaiah issued by Panchayat Secretary, GP Pedda Beeravalli dt:18.06.2013. Ex.A22.Application submitted to the Tahasildar Bonakal by the father of the plaintiffs with endorsement of Tahasildar
dt:28.03.2013.
Ex.A23.Letter issued by Tahasildar, Bonakal in Rc.No.D/1247/2014 to the father of plaintiffs (three pages) dt:05.09.2014. Ex.A24.Certified copy of 1B register of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and Right of register (7 pages). Ex.A25.Certified copy of Right of Register for defendant No.3.
Ex.A26.Memo issued by the Tahasildar, Bonakal in Rc.No.RTI/A/1416/2013 dt:19.07.2013. Ex.A27. Certified copy of Right of Record of Pedabeeravalli revenue village (26 pages). Ex.A28.Application submitted to Tahasildar,Bonakal with postal receipts and acknowledgment dt:19.12.2013. Ex.A29.Memo issued by the Tahasildar, Bonakal in Rc.No.B/02/2014
dt:26.12.2013.
Ex.A30.Certified copy of order of first appellate authority and RDO Khammam in RTI C2/5306/2014 dt:08.09.2014. Ex.A31.Certified copy of order issued by AP information commission
dt:12.02.2015.
Ex.A32.Memo issued by Tahasildar, Bonamal in Rc.No.B/225/2015 (four pages) dt:20.03.2015. Ex.A33.The letter issued to the RDO, Khammam byDistrict collector, in Rc.No.E4/862-1/2020 dt.27.03.2020. Ex.A34.Letter issued to the Tahasildar Bonakal by RDO, Khammam in Rc.No.A3/1506/2020 dt:15.05.2020. Ex.A35.Letter issued to the Tahasildar, Bonakal by RDO, Khammam in Rc.No.A3/E 12374/2020 dt.28.10.2020. Ex.A36.Memo issued by Tahasildar, Bonakal in Rc.No.B/857/2019 with enclosures (7 sheets) dt:28.08.2020.
32
Ex.A37.Office copy of legal notice with postal receipts and acknowledgment dt:06.09.2021. Ex.A38.Certified copy of registered Will deed bearing No.27/1993 of SRO, Madhira dt:29.10.1993. Ex.A39.Letter issued by RDO to Tahasildar vide Rc.No.A3/3955/2020
dt:19.11.2020.
Ex.A40.Order issued by SpecialTribunal Court on 11.02.2021 of Thotakura Kanakamma in ROR appeal No.A3/2627/2014
dt:18.06.2021.
Ex.A41.Order issued by Special Tribunal Court on 11.02.2021 of Thotakura Ramadevi in ROR appeal No.A3/2629/2014
dt:18.06.2021.
Ex.A42.Order issued by Special Tribunal Court on 11.02.2021 of Thotakura Anantharamulu in ROR appeal No.A3/2628/2014
dt:18.06.2021.
Ex.A43.Order issued by CMA No.627/2013 by Hon’ble High court
dt:01.11.2013.
Ex.A44.Online salary slip of Yanamaddi Ramesh Babu employee code No.026456254 dated April 2013. Ex.A45.Order issued in contempt case No.474/2020 by the Hon’ble High court, state of Telangana dt:02.08.2021. Ex.A46.Order issued by First Appellate Authority, RDO Khammam order No.RTI C2/2215/2020 dt:27.08.2020. Ex.A47.Application submitted to Tahasildar, Bonakal dt:19.05.2018.
Ex.A48.Adangal pahanies issued by Tahasildar, Bonakal for the years from 2000-01 to 2016-17 (13 pages) dt:16.05.2022. Ex.A49.ROR Proceedings issued on behalf of Thotakura Kanakamma (10 sheets) dt:03.05.2008. Ex.A50.Affidavit duly notarized by Yennaboina Venkateshwarlu, S/o.Chinna Ramulu with regard to sada sale agreement
dt:31.03.1996 dt:05.07.2006.
Ex.A51.Certified copies of applications dt:19.12.2013 and 20.02.2014 together with memo dt:26.12.2013 issued by Tahasildar, Bonakal.
33
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS
Ex.B1.Certified copy of unregistered agreement of sale executed by Kapa Saithalli dt:25.05.1984 (this Ex.B1 is marked subject to objection of the learned counsel for plaintiffs stating that this document though impounded, but it was not a registered document). Ex.B2.Certified copy of sale executed by Thotakuri Ramabayamma.
Ex.B3.Certified copy of pahanies in respect of suit ‘A’ schedule property. Ex.B4.Certified copy of pahanies in respect of suit ‘B’ schedule property. Ex.B5.Certified copy of pattadar pass books (2) and title deed (1) issued in favour of Thotakuri Kanakamma in respect of suit ‘A’ schedule property (This Ex.B.5 is marked subject to objection of the learned counsel for plaintiffs stating that the original of Ex.B5 was fabricated). Ex.B6.Certified copy of pattadar passbook issued in favour of Alapati (Thotakura) Ramadevi (This Ex.B.6 is marked subject to objection of the learned counsel for plaintiffs stating that the original of ex.B6 was fabricated) Ex.B7.Certified copy of Land revenue receipt.
Ex.B8.Certified copy of Land revenue receipt.
Ex.B9.Certified copy of Land revenue receipt.
Ex.B10.Certified copy of Land revenue receipt.
Ex.B11.Certified copy of Land revenue receipt.
Ex.B12.Certified copy of Land revenue receipt.
Ex.B13.Certified copy of Land revenue receipt.
Ex.B14.Certified copy of Land revenue receipt.
Ex.B15.Certified copy of Land revenue receipt.
Ex.B16.Certified copy of Land revenue receipt.
Ex.B17.Certified copy of Land revenue receipt.
Ex.B18.Certified copy of Land revenue receipt.
34
Ex.B19.Certified copy of order in I.A.No.398/2013 in O.S.No.54/2013 on thefile of Spl. Sessions Jduge for trial of cases under Scs and Sts (POA) Act, 1989-cum- Addl. District Judge at Khammam dt:24.06.2013. Ex.B20.Certified copy of extract of Birthand Death Register of Pedda Beeravalli village for the year 1996 issued by Tahsildar, Bonakal Mandal dt:24.06.2013. Ex.B21.Original pattadar passbook pertaining to D3.
Ex.B22.Certified copies of pahanies (5) in number for the years 1996-97 to 2010-2011 issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Bonakal Mandal. Ex.B23.Certified copy of pahanies in respect of suit ‘B’ schedule property issued through Mee-seva dt.23.04.2014. Ex.B24.Certified copy of pahanies in respect of suit ‘B’ schedule property issued through Mee-seva dt.23.04.2014. Ex.B25.Certified copy of pahanies in respect of suit ‘A’ schedule property issued through Mee-seva dt.23.04.2014. Ex.B26.Certified copy of pahanies in respect of suit ‘C’ schedule property issued through Mee-seva dt.01.08.2012. Ex.B27.Certified copy of pahanies in respect of suit ‘C’ schedule property issued through Mee-seva dt.01.08.2012. Ex.B28.Certified copy of pahanies in respect of suit ‘C’ schedule property issued through Mee-seva dt.23.04.2014. Ex.B29.Certified copy of pahanies in respect of suit ‘C’ schedule property issued through Mee-seva dt.23.04.2014. Ex.B30.Original Land Revenue receipt No.0889163 issued by V.R.O., Pedda Beeravalli dt:03.04.2014. Ex.B31.Original Land Revenue receipt No.1545661 issued by V.R.O., Pedda Beeravalli dt:10.05.2013. Ex.B32.Original Land Revenue receipt No.8758727 issued by V.R.O., Pedda Beeravalli dt:30.07.2012. Ex.B33.Original Land Revenue receipt No. 1205200 issued by V.R.O., Pedda Beeravalli dt:04.06.2010. Ex.B34.Original Land Revenue receipt No.05900525 issued by V.R.O., Pedda Beeravalli dt:04.03.2008.
35
Ex.B35.Original Land Revenue receipt No.4638715 issued by V.R.O., Pedda Beeravalli dt:29.03.2007. Ex.B36.Original Land Revenue receipt No.528520 issued by V.R.O., Pedda Beeravalli dt:15.09.1991. Ex.B37.Original Land Revenue receipt No.154560 issued by V.R.O., Pedda Beeravalli dt:10.05.2013. Ex.B38.Original Land Revenue receipt No.0889174 issued by V.R.O., Pedda Beeravalli dt:07.05.2014. Ex.B39.Original Land Revenue receipt No.0889162 issued by V.R.O., Pedda Beeravalli dt:03.04.2014. Ex.B40.Original Land Revenue receipt No.154559 issued by V.R.O., Pedda Beeravalli dt:10.05.2013. Ex.B41.Original Land Revenue receipt No.0590524 issued by V.R.O., Pedda Beeravalli dt:04.03.2008. Ex.B42.Original Land Revenue receipt No.0889164 issued by V.R.O., Pedda Beeravalli dt:03.04.2024. Ex.B43.Original Land Revenue receipt No.0889173 issued by V.R.O., Pedda Beeravalli dt:07.05.2014. Ex.B44.Agreement of sale dt:15.05.1990 (marked subject to objection that the document is not admissible for want of registration) Ex.B45.Original registered sale deed vide doc.No.875/1985.
Ex.B46.Certified copy judgment and decree dt:23.12.2022 in
O.S.No.54/2013 on the file of VI Addl. District Judge,
Sathupally. Ex.B47.Certified copy of gift deed dt:17.05.1990 executed by Yenamaddi Ramaiah in favour of D.2 (impounded by District Registrar, Khammam) Ex.B47 was marked subject to objection raised by the learned counsel for plaintiffs since it is an un-registered gift deed).
VI ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,
SATHUPALLY